Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of an appellant in a criminal appeal, overturning the lower court's decision that sentenced the appellant to five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court examined the prosecution's evidence and determined that it failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was filed against the judgment delivered by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-1, Fast Track Court, Barrackpore, in Sessions Trial No. 2(6) of 2013. The case originated from an alleged incident on November 15, 2011, in which the appellant was accused of assaulting the victim. The prosecution contended that the injuries caused by the appellant led to the victim’s death on November 20, 2011.

According to the FIR, which was lodged by the deceased’s elder brother, the appellant allegedly assaulted the victim with a stick, targeting his head, nose, mouth, and chest. However, during cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he was not present at the scene and had signed a blank paper, which was later used to draft the written complaint. The judgment recorded, "He also admitted that he put his signature on a blank paper where subsequently written complaint was written."

During the trial, several prosecution witnesses failed to support the allegations made in the FIR. PW-2 and PW-3, both relatives of the deceased, stated that they had no knowledge of how the victim died. PW-4, a shop owner, testified that he had heard from another individual that the appellant had attacked the victim. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the incident. Similarly, PW-5, who was said to be the primary source of PW-4’s information, testified that he was not present at the scene and had merely heard that the appellant had pushed the victim.

Medical reports contained inconsistencies regarding the cause of death. PW-7, the doctor who initially treated the victim on November 15, 2011, noted only minor injuries, including swelling and an abrasion on the nose. The autopsy surgeon, PW-8, recorded that the victim's cause of death was due to a diseased condition of the brain. The judgment stated, "The death was due to the effect of the diseased condition of brain and anti mortem in nature, no injury was detected on examination. Cerebral edema was found on dissection, which may be caused due to third grade diffuse axonal injury, caused from trauma or from the infection as I found pus on both the lungs."

The delay in lodging the FIR was also noted in the judgment. The FIR was filed on November 20, 2011, at 17:55 hours, nearly ten hours after the victim’s death and five days after the alleged incident. The judgment recorded, "The incident had allegedly taken place on 15.11.2011 but no FIR was lodged on that day. Victim Kamal died 5 days thereafter i.e. on 20.11.2011 at about 8 a.m. and the FIR was lodged on 20.11.2011 at 17:55 hrs."

The court examined the prosecution's evidence and found no direct proof linking the appellant to the victim’s death. The judgment stated, "Though in the FIR it was alleged that the appellant had assaulted the victim with a stick, this claim has not been corroborated. Even the hearsay evidence of prosecution witnesses only disclosed that the victim was pushed and fell down, but admittedly, no one saw the appellant either assaulting or pushing the victim."

The trial court had relied on the assumption that the appellant, being a fourth-degree black belt in karate, had the physical ability to inflict fatal injuries. The High Court addressed this reasoning, stating, "The basis of conviction that the appellant is a 4th Dan Black Belt holder in karate and for which he might have pushed the victim and thereby the victim sustained fatal injury is absolutely ridiculous."

The court examined the autopsy findings, which revealed no significant external injuries apart from minor abrasions on the nose. The medical opinion indicated that cerebral edema could have resulted from infection rather than trauma. The judgment recorded, "The autopsy surgeon stated that he found pus on both the lungs, which might have caused death due to infection. There was no definitive medical evidence establishing that the alleged incident was the direct cause of the victim’s death."

The High Court examined the trial court’s reasoning and found that the conviction was based on assumptions rather than evidence. The judgment noted, "The provision under Section 304 Part II IPC applies when the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. In this case, the prosecution has failed to provide substantive evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s actions met this threshold."

The assessment of witness testimony was also addressed. The court observed that the trial court had treated some witnesses as direct observers despite their statements to the contrary. The judgment recorded, "Though no prosecution witness has stated that he was an eyewitness to the occurrence, the trial court overenthusiastically treated some witnesses as direct observers of the incident."

The judgment stated that the prosecution had not provided evidence establishing any direct causation between the alleged act and the victim’s death. The court observed, "There is no evidence that the death which occurred five days after the alleged incident has direct proximity with the alleged occurrence."

After examining the case, the High Court found that the trial court’s findings were erroneous. The judgment recorded, "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very much clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the appellant herein and as such the Appellant is liable to be acquitted."

The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and directed the appellant's release. The judgment recorded, "CRA 433 of 2019 thus stands allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below in Sessions Trial Case No. 2(6) of 2013 dated 28.06.2019 and 04.07.2019 are hereby set aside. The appellant is set at liberty and released from his bail bond."

Case Title: Tapas Das @ Tapas Ranjan Das v. The State of West Bengal
Case Number: CRA 433 of 2019
Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

[Read/Download order]