Grievous Hurt Charge Cannot Be Framed Without Supporting Medical Evidence: P&H High Court Modifies Charges In Assault Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in cases where the nature of injuries forms the foundation of criminal charges, courts must primarily rely on objective medical evidence, and cannot proceed on speculative or exaggerated claims. The Court modified the charges framed against the accused, holding that offences relating to “grievous hurt” were not made out in the absence of supporting medical material.Justice Sumeet Goel said, "It is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence that for a Court to frame charges under the penal provisions involving grievous hurt, there must exist a prima facie foundation establishing the specific statutory ingredients enumerated under Section 320 of the IPC. Where the medical evidence available on record, unequivocally characterizes the injuries as 'simple' in nature, the Court is legally precluded from venturing in the realm of grievous hurt, in the absence of cogent, rebuttal material."The classification of injuries under the code is not a matter of judicial caprice but a matter of scientific determination. As the maxim goes, Cuilibet in sua arte perito est credendum, i.e. credence must be given to one skilled in his peculiar art. Consequently, the Court must defer to the objective findings of medical experts, for while such an opinion is not absolute conclusion, it possesses significant probative value and acts as the primary compass in navigating complex and scientific facts that lie outside the ordinary experience of the Court, it added.The development comes while deciding two connected criminal revision petitions filed by the accused and the complainant respectively, both challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram. The case arose out of an FIR alleging assault, wrongful restraint, robbery and criminal intimidation.As per the prosecution, the complainant sustained multiple injuries during the incident. The Medico-Legal Report (MLR) recorded several contusions, swelling, and complaints of pain across different parts of the body.Medical opinions from Government doctors consistently opined that the injuries were simple in nature. A private dental treatment undertaken later resulted in tooth extraction nearly 2.5 months after the incident. Even subsequent medical reviews, including those considering private treatment records, reaffirmed that the injuries were simple.The police ultimately filed a chargesheet under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 and 34 IPC. The trial court framed charges accordingly.Counsel for the accused sought quashing of charges under Sections 325 and 331 IPC, arguing absence of grievous injury. Whether charges for grievous hurt (Section 325 IPC) could be sustained when medical evidence consistently described injuries as “simple”.Justice Sumeet Goel highlighted, "at the stage of framing of charges, the court is expected to proceed in an assiduous and discerning manner, rather than adopting a perfunctory, ritualistic, or mechanical approach. The court, while evaluating the question of charge, must not act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but must adjudicate upon this pivotal aspect by balancing the competing interests of all stakeholders; namely, the prosecution (representing society at large), the victim/complainant, and the accused."Stating that while the Court undoubtedly possesses the power to sift and weigh the material on record for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case has been spelled out, the Court said, "it must eschew making a roving or fishing inquiry into the absolute truthfulness, reliability, or sufficiency of the material at this juncture, as these are matters strictly in the realm of trial." However, the Court is legally bound to examine whether the material available on record, if left uncontroverted, satisfies the essential ingredients of the offence(s) sought to be charged. Where the material on record engenders a grave and strong suspicion, the Court is fully justified in framing charges; conversely, where the material yields a mere suspicion or where two views are equally plausible, the benefit must inevitably enure to the accused, it added.They must not act as a “post office” of the prosecution at the same time, they should not conduct a mini-trial, the judge said.However it added that, where offences depend on objective scientific evidence, such as medical classification of injuries, the Court must carefully scrutinize such material.The Court held that mere allegations or delayed medical procedures cannot substitute statutory requirements under Section 320 IPC. In absence of cogent medical proof, framing of charge under Section 325 IPC would be legally unsustainableIt observed that allowing such charges would amount to subjecting an accused to trial for an offence that is “ex facie legally non-existent.”In the light of the above, the Charge under Section 325 IPC (grievous hurt) was set aside and the offence was held to fall within the...

Grievous Hurt Charge Cannot Be Framed Without Supporting Medical Evidence: P&H High Court Modifies Charges In Assault Case

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Grievous Hurt Charge Cannot Be Framed Without Supporting Medical Evidence: P&H High Court Modifies Charges In Assault Case

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers