The Single Judge Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh was hearing criminal appeals challenging the judgment of the trial court that had convicted the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and had extended them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The case arose from an incident on 27 February 2005 when the informant, returning after attending the call of nature, was allegedly assaulted. According to the prosecution, one accused struck him with a khanti on his back while another assaulted him with a lathi on his head. The informant further stated that his gold chain was snatched during the occurrence. When his mother rushed to the scene after hearing his cries, she too was assaulted by the accused persons and sustained injuries. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 323, 324, 307, 379 and 34 IPC. The trial court, however, recorded a conviction only under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

The appellants contested the conviction on several grounds. They submitted that the case originated from a long‑standing land dispute and previous criminal litigation between the parties, which furnished a strong motive for false implication. It was pointed out that one prosecution witness had turned hostile and that the informant himself admitted that the genesis of the occurrence lay in the existing land dispute. The appellants further contended that they belonged to respectable families—a retired judicial officer, a practising advocate, a school teacher and the proprietor of a dairy—and had been falsely implicated due to village politics. They argued that the prior enmity rendered the prosecution case unreliable and that the testimony of the injured informant should be discarded.

Upon examining the evidence, the High Court observed that the prosecution case substantially rested on the testimony of the injured informant. The Bench noted that although the informant’s testimony was not free from inconsistencies and the investigation suffered from certain infirmities, the evidence nevertheless established that the informant had been assaulted during the occurrence. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients necessary to sustain charges under Section 307 IPC or the allegation of robbery beyond reasonable doubt. However, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the accused persons, acting in furtherance of their common intention, had voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and his mother.

Rejecting the argument that previous enmity rendered the prosecution case unreliable, the Court observed that mere prior enmity between the parties cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of an injured informant. Rather, such enmity may constitute a motive for the occurrence itself. The Bench further held that the existence of prior enmity, by itself, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case, particularly when the same also furnishes a plausible motive for the occurrence. Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s appreciation of the evidence and upheld the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period already undergone by the appellants, the Court modified the sentence and reduced it to the period already undergone. It directed that if the appellants had already undergone the modified sentence, they be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The judgment thus upheld the conviction while granting relief on the quantum of sentence.

The decision clarifies that prior hostility between parties does not automatically invalidate the testimony of an injured witness. It reinforces the principle that such antecedent relations may be regarded as a contextual factor that could explain the occurrence rather than a basis for discarding evidence. The ruling underscores the need for courts to evaluate the credibility of an injured witness on the totality of the evidence, including consistencies, corroboration and the overall probability of the alleged incident, rather than relying solely on the existence of prior enmity.