Injuries Alone Don’t Prove Guilt: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man in Family Assault Case Amidst Property Feud

“Without Proof of Assault, Conviction Cannot Stand”: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das of the Calcutta High Court quashing a conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed,
“Merely because the complainant sustained injuries is insufficient to establish guilt under Section 324 IPC when the prosecution fails to prove assault by dangerous weapon beyond reasonable doubt.”

The High Court allowed the appeal filed by Gopeswar Ghosh, setting aside the Sessions Court’s conviction arising from a bitter property dispute between brothers, highlighting inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and absence of convincing proof of assault.

Justice Das made a significant observation on the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, stating,
“When prosecution fails to establish the use of any weapon or clear proof of assault by the accused, conviction merely on the basis of injury is contrary to law.”

Referring to the legal threshold under Section 324 IPC, the Court reminded,
“The sine qua non for conviction under Section 324 is voluntary hurt caused by a dangerous weapon. Neither the presence of such weapon was established, nor was the identity of the assailant conclusively proven.”

The genesis of the case lay in a protracted property feud between two brothers—Krishna Ghosh, the complainant, and Gopeswar Ghosh, the appellant. The complainant alleged an assault by Gopeswar using a shabol (iron rod), resulting in injuries including cuts and fractures.

However, crucial questions were raised: the complaint was lodged after more than a month, the alleged weapon was never seized, independent witnesses were absent, and medical records failed to conclusively identify the cause and nature of injuries.

The Sessions Court, acknowledging these gaps, acquitted the accused under Sections 448, 326, and 307 IPC but surprisingly convicted him under Section 324 IPC. This led to the present appeal before the High Court.

The High Court framed the pivotal issue:
“Whether the conviction under Section 324 IPC can be sustained when the prosecution failed to establish essential ingredients of the offence.”Justice Das carefully dissected the evidence, noting glaring inconsistencies and gaps:

• The Court remarked,
  “There was unexplained delay in lodging the complaint which dilutes the prosecution’s credibility especially in context of admitted property disputes and compromise attempts involving monetary demands.”

• On the trespass allegation, the Court found it fundamentally flawed, stating,
  “The complainant himself admitted both parties lived in the same premises under separate arrangements; thus, no case under Section 448 IPC could arise.”

• Examining the medical evidence, the Court observed,
  “The prosecution failed to link the injuries to any assault by the accused. Doctors did not record how or by whom injuries were caused, nor was there evidence suggesting grievous injuries as per medical jurisprudence.”

• The absence of neutral corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution. The Court noted,
  “Prosecution witnesses were limited to family members; neighbours and other independent witnesses who could have shed light remained silent.”

The High Court also gave weight to defence evidence, which suggested the injuries were caused by an accidental fall during a household altercation—a theory consistent with medical records and unshaken by the prosecution.

Justice Das referred to Supreme Court precedents including Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan and reiterated,
“In criminal trials, the benefit of doubt must be afforded when prosecution’s case is riddled with inconsistencies, motivated allegations, and absence of independent corroboration.”

Critically analysing the applicability of Section 324 IPC, the Court clarified,
“Without proving the use of dangerous weapon and voluntary assault, conviction under Section 324 IPC cannot be sustained. Injuries per se, without connecting evidence, do not constitute conclusive proof.”

In a decisive conclusion, Justice Das held,
“The conviction under Section 324 IPC is unsustainable. The judgment of the Sessions Court is hereby set aside, and the accused is acquitted of all charges.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction along with the sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000 was quashed.

This ruling by the Calcutta High Court reinforces a time-tested legal principle:
“Criminal justice must be based on credible evidence, not conjecture or familial vendettas.”

It also serves as a stern reminder that property disputes among family members cannot be resolved through false criminal prosecutions. The High Court’s balanced reasoning ensures justice remains untainted by personal motives.

Date of Decision: 18th July 2025