Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has overturned the conviction and sentence of two individuals previously found guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court set aside the trial court’s judgment, citing significant delays in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and a lack of independent corroboration.

The appeal arose from a conviction order dated 20.07.2005 and a sentencing order dated 21.07.2005 issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (IV), Raghunathpur, District Purulia, in Sessions Trial No. ST-3(9)03. The trial court found the appellants guilty under Sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to six years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000 each, with an additional one-year imprisonment in default of payment.

The case originated from a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), alleging that on 17.05.1997, at approximately 3:30 PM, the accused objected to the informant’s family plastering an external wall adjacent to Kuli Road. The complaint stated that an altercation ensued, during which the accused allegedly attacked the informant’s brother by grabbing his testicles. The complaint further alleged that the accused struck the informant’s father on his shoulder with an iron rod while another accused assaulted him on the head with an axe, intending to kill him. Another family member was allegedly attacked with a lathi, and the wife of a relative was also assaulted.

The complainant claimed that the victims sought to file a report at the local police station but were denied assistance. Instead, the police purportedly registered a case against the victims, leading to the arrest of some family members. The informant then approached the court, leading to the FIR being registered on 22.08.1997—more than three months after the incident.

During the trial, the prosecution presented nine witnesses, including the alleged victim, family members, and two medical officers. The prosecution contended that the delay in filing the FIR was due to reluctance by the police to register the case. The defense maintained that the allegations were false and the accused were being framed due to a long-standing family dispute. No independent witnesses testified in support of the prosecution’s claims.

The medical reports submitted by the prosecution indicated that the injuries sustained by the alleged victim could have been caused by blunt force trauma. However, the medical officers who testified stated that such injuries "may have been caused by falling on a hard and blunt object." The prosecution failed to present forensic evidence linking the alleged weapons to the injuries sustained by the victim.

Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed that the prosecution failed to provide an adequate explanation for the significant delay in lodging the FIR. The judgment recorded, "This Court has meticulously gone through the evidence of PW2 and has failed to notice any logical explanation as to what prevented him from approaching the jurisdictional Sub-divisional Magistrate at the earliest."

The judgment examined contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The informant’s statements in court contradicted his own statements in the FIR, particularly regarding the circumstances of the alleged assault and the status of the victims at the time of filing the complaint. The court noted, "PW2, being the informant, stated that all the victims were in judicial custody at the time of filing the complaint, yet his testimony failed to support this claim."

The court further examined the reliability of witness testimonies and noted that the prosecution failed to present independent witnesses who could corroborate the claims made in the complaint. The judgment observed, "Despite the prosecution's claim that several villagers witnessed the incident, no independent witness was produced."

Additionally, the investigation was deemed inadequate. The Investigating Officer admitted during cross-examination that he did not prepare a site map or examine key witnesses. The court recorded, "The investigation as carried out by PW7 is perfunctory and does not inspire confidence."

The court also took into account inconsistencies in medical evidence. While the prosecution claimed that the injuries were inflicted using an axe and an iron rod, the medical officers' reports did not conclusively establish the nature of the injuries as being caused by those weapons. The judgment noted, "The medical evidence does not conclusively establish that the injuries suffered by the victim were necessarily inflicted by the accused."

Given the contradictions in witness testimonies, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and inadequate investigation, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction. The court ruled, "In view of the inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, this Court finds sufficient merit in the instant appeal." Consequently, the appellants were acquitted and released.

The court also directed the High Court Legal Service Committee to ensure the disbursement of honorariums to the advocates appointed to represent the appellants. Furthermore, the judgment instructed the trial court to return the trial record and relevant documents to the appropriate authorities.

Case Title: Ajit Majhi Gope & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
Case Number: C.R.A. No. 526 of 2005
Bench: Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

[Read/Download order]