Kiran Raj

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the judgment and order of conviction in a case involving offenses under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner had been convicted of assaulting a minor and sought relief under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, raising concerns regarding inconsistencies in witness testimonies and his mental condition. The court found no grounds for interference with the lower courts’ findings and upheld the conviction and sentence.

The case originated from an incident on September 17, 1998, where the petitioner, a neighbor of the victim, was accused of entering the house of a five-year-old girl and committing acts of physical assault. The complaint alleged that the petitioner placed his fingers in the child’s private parts and pressed her breast, causing injuries that required medical attention at Chinsurah Hospital. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 354 and 323 of the IPC.

The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment under Section 323 IPC and seven months under Section 354 IPC. On appeal, the lower appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief on multiple grounds.

The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing that the victim, who deposed as PW-3, could not properly identify him initially and did so only after being instructed by her parents. He further contended that there was a prior dispute between his family and the victim’s family, which allegedly led to false accusations. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the identification of the petitioner by the victim was prompted by external influences, which raised concerns about the reliability of her testimony. Additionally, he pointed to inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the victim’s parents, regarding the timing of the incident.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that other witnesses, including neighbors, provided hearsay evidence that lacked direct relevance. He further submitted that the petitioner’s mental condition was described as that of an "idiot" in testimony and should have been taken into account in assessing culpability and sentencing. The petitioner also raised an alternative plea that, given the lapse of 27 years since the incident and his mental condition, the sentence should be converted into a fine instead of imprisonment.

The High Court examined these contentions and noted that the courts below had already considered the issues raised by the petitioner. Regarding the claim that the victim could not identify the accused on her own, the court observed, "No suggestion was put to the witness to the effect that if her parents would not have identified the accused, P.W-3 herself would not be capable of identifying the wrongdoer." The court stated that from other parts of PW-3’s testimony, it was evident that she consistently maintained that the accused had entered her house and committed the offense.

Addressing the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the court noted that while minor discrepancies existed, they did not affect the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case. The court referred to the testimony of the victim’s parents and held that the variations in their statements regarding the time of the incident did not cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The court further held that the argument regarding a prior dispute between the families was not supported by documentary or oral evidence. The court observed, "No prior dispute was found to have existed from the documentary or oral evidence to substantiate that there existed any animosity that can have prompted complainant to lodge any false complaint against the appellant herein."

The medical evidence played a crucial role in the court’s findings. The testimony of PW-8, the doctor who examined the victim, stated, "The vulva was swollen and there were abrasions on the labia majora, the hymen was ruptured and fresh vaginal bleeding was present. He also made definite opinion that such injury cannot be self-infliction of injury." The court found that the medical findings corroborated the victim’s testimony and concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.

Regarding the petitioner’s mental condition, the court considered the argument that he was slow in understanding the consequences of his actions. The court stated, "Even if it is accepted that the appellant was slow in understanding about the consequences but still an idiot who may not have the prudence of average person but he is not to be reckoned as devoid of natural physical urges." The judgment further noted that there was no proof presented to establish that the petitioner was legally insane or incapable of understanding the nature of his actions at the time of the offense.

The court also addressed the legal limitations of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, stating, "Such power cannot be taken as another mode of preferring appeal from the impugned judgment. The expressions ‘ends of justice’ and ‘to prevent abuse of the process of court’ are intended to work when an innocent person is unjustifiably subjected to an undeserving conviction." The court held that in the absence of perversity or reliance on inadmissible evidence by the lower courts, there was no basis to interfere with the conviction.

The petitioner’s alternative argument to convert the sentence into a fine was also rejected. The court observed, "Considering the heinous nature of crime committed by the petitioner upon a five-year-old girl, the imprisonment awarded by the court below can be said to be flea-bite sentence which does not call for intervention by this court." The court held that the gravity of the offense warranted the sentence imposed and that substituting it with a fine would not be appropriate.

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within 30 days to serve his sentence. The judgment stated, "If the petitioner/convict fails to appear before the trial court within the specified time, the Trial Court will be at liberty to take all appropriate steps including issuance of warrant of arrest to secure attendance of the petitioner to serve out his sentence."

Case Title: Sri Suresh Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and another
Case Number: C.R.R. 1153 of 2016
Bench: Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

[Read/Download order]