Summary
The Court upheld convictions for voluntarily causing hurt and rioting arising from an attack during polling. Consistent independent and injured-witness accounts established participation, the common object and use of force. A medical injury report was not indispensable to prove hurt, which includes bodily pain. Membership of the unlawful assembly made each member liable for rioting when force furthered its common object. The six-month concurrent sentences were maintained, with immediate surrender directed.
Issues
- Whether the witness evidence proved the appellants’ participation and hurt despite the absence of one injury report.
- Whether a separate violent act by each assembly member was necessary for conviction for rioting.
Provisions considered
- Sections 319 and 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860Bodily pain constituted hurt, which could be established by reliable testimony without an injury report in every case. (¶ 8)
- Sections 141, 146 and 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860The established unlawful assembly used force in furtherance of its common object; individual use of force by every member was unnecessary. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 10)
Held
- The High Court should have examined the individual cases and evidence in the first criminal appeals. Instead of remitting, the Supreme Court itself reassessed the record and found the convictions supported. (¶¶ 5, 5.1)
- Independent witnesses and injured witnesses consistently supported the prosecution, identified the accused and withstood cross-examination. Injured testimony carried particular weight, though strong contradictions or other cogent grounds could justify rejecting it; minor discrepancies alone did not. (¶¶ 5.1, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7)
- An injury report was not an indispensable condition for conviction under Section 323. Hurt includes bodily pain. The informant’s reliable account of blows and treatment, read with the other evidence, established the offence despite absence of his medical report. (¶ 8)
- Rioting required an unlawful assembly and force or violence used in prosecution of its common object. Once those conditions and membership were proved, every member was liable even without a separate proved violent act by each. The evidence established the assembly’s object of taking the voter list and facilitating bogus voting, and its use of force. (¶¶ 9, 9.1)
- The six-month concurrent simple-imprisonment sentences were maintained. Although the Court stressed the gravity of interference with free voting, the State had not appealed for enhancement. The appellants were directed to surrender forthwith. (¶¶ 5, 10, 11)
Result
Appeals dismissed; convictions and concurrent six-month sentences upheld, with surrender forthwith directed.