Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Calcutta, Single Bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas has allowed the appeal and set aside the 1988 Sessions Court conviction of the accused, who had been sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for offences including rioting and culpable homicide with common object, and directed that they be discharged from their bail bonds and set at liberty unless required in any other case. The Bench held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because related eyewitness versions contained material contradictions, their conduct was inconsistent with the narrative, the origin of the FIR was doubtful, and the investigation showed serious lapses; it added that when the “foundation itself appears shaky,” the conviction cannot stand.

The appeal arose from a judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore, whereby the appellants were found guilty under Sections 147 and 304 Part-I/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment with fine. The prosecution case originated from a written complaint lodged by the wife of the victim, alleging that her husband had been summoned to a midnight meeting at Sripur Gangcha Club Ghar, where he was assaulted by the accused persons and later succumbed to injuries.

Also Read: SC Seeks Centre’s Affidavit on Whether TET Is Mandatory for Special Educators in Classes IX–XII; States Told to Report Compliance on Contract Teacher Parity

The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and produced documentary evidence. The defence did not adduce independent evidence and relied on cross-examination. The appellants contended that the conviction was based on material contradictions, omissions, and improvements in the testimonies of related witnesses, inconsistencies regarding the lodging of the FIR, and lack of independent corroboration. The State argued that eyewitnesses supported the prosecution version and that medical evidence corroborated the assault.

The Court observed that PW1, PW3, and PW4 were closely related to the deceased and were interested witnesses. It recorded, “Such indifferent and passive conduct is wholly inconsistent with normal human behaviour, particularly from close relatives. This unnatural conduct renders their claimed presence at the time of occurrence doubtful and significantly erodes the credibility of their assertion that they actually witnessed the assault.”

Regarding inconsistencies in medical evidence, the Court stated, “This glaring inconsistency between the oral testimony and the physical evidence strikes at the root of the prosecution case.” On improvements in testimony, it recorded, “The omission of such vital details from the first version… constitutes a material omission amounting to improvement and contradiction, suggesting embellishment at a later stage.”

Concerning the absence of specific roles attributed to the accused, the Court observed, “Vague and omnibus allegations against a group of persons, without delineating individual acts, are inherently weak in nature and unsafe to form the sole basis of conviction.”

On non-examination of independent witnesses, it stated, “This deliberate withholding of natural witnesses gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution.” With respect to contradictions in lodging of the FIR, the Court recorded, “These inconsistent and self-contradictory statements on a crucial aspect like the lodging of the F.I.R. are not minor discrepancies but material contradictions going to the root of the prosecution case.”

On reliance upon Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, it stated, “A statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence… In the absence of such proof, the contents of a Section 161 statement remain legally inconsequential and cannot be treated as substantive material against the accused.”

Finally, the Court observed, “The impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities. The findings recorded therein cannot be sustained in the eye of law.”

Also Read: Tsunami Relief Cannot Be Denied Solely For Being A Company : Calcutta HC Orders Andaman Admin To Pay Compensation

The Court ordered, “Thus, the instant appeal be and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated March 30, 1988 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 13th April, 1987 is hereby set aside.”

“Appellants are on bail. They are to be discharged from their respective bail bonds and be set at liberty, if they are not wanted in connection with other case. In terms of the mandate of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is required to execute bail bonds with adequate sureties.” It further specified, “Such bonds, upon execution, shall remain valid and operative for a period of six months, so as to ensure the availability and appearance of the appellant before the higher court as and when called upon, thereby safeguarding the due course of justice.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu, Mr. Anindya Sunder Das, Md. Jannat UL Firduas, Mr. Rajsekhar Hota, Mr. Suman Haldar

For the Respondents: Mr. Abishek Sinha, Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee

Case Title: Bishnupada Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal
Neutral Citation: 2026: CHC-AS:260
Case Number: C.R.A. 144 of 1988
Bench: Justice Prasenjit Biswas