Safiya Malik

A recent judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court has upheld the convictions of four individuals found guilty of offenses under Sections 448 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following a violent assault stemming from political rivalry. The court meticulously examined witness testimonies, forensic evidence, and the defense's submissions before rendering its decision.

The case revolves around an incident that transpired in the early hours of March 9, 2004, in Teghoriya Village, Uttar Dinajpur district, West Bengal. According to the prosecution, the altercation was the culmination of a political dispute. The deceased, Upen Roy, was an active supporter of a rival political faction, and his sister was contesting local elections against candidates affiliated with the accused.

On the evening of March 8, 2004, an alleged theft occurred at a mustard field owned by Ananda Biswas. Two individuals, identified as Nirmal Baperi (PW11) and Tapan Mondal (PW12), were accused of stealing mustard crops and were subsequently caught and assaulted by a group of individuals, including some of the appellants. The accused later released them, intending to bring the matter before an informal village court, known as the 'Salishi'.

Later that night, at approximately 2:30 AM, a group of 19 individuals, including the four appellants, forcibly entered the residence of Upen Roy while he was asleep with his wife, Manju Roy (PW1). The intruders, armed with iron rods, sticks, hammers, and wooden batons, dragged the victim out of his house. He was then taken to the house of Paresh Roy and subjected to a severe beating. When his wife attempted to intervene, she was forcefully thrown aside by the attackers. The group subsequently dragged the victim to an area near a local primary school, where they continued their assault. The victim was left unconscious and severely injured before the attackers fled the scene.

The following morning, PW1 lodged a complaint at Goalpokher Police Station, leading to the registration of FIR No. 29/2004 under Sections 143, 448, 341, 325, 326, and 302 of the IPC. An inquest was conducted, and the post-mortem report indicated multiple fatal injuries, including skull fractures and a ruptured spleen. The medical findings confirmed that the injuries were caused by blunt force trauma and were homicidal in nature.

During the trial, the prosecution presented 13 witnesses, including PW1, who identified the attackers and described the sequence of events. Several other witnesses corroborated her testimony, including PW2, PW3, PW4, and PW5, all of whom stated that they witnessed the assault. The defense contended that the accused were falsely implicated due to political rivalry and attempted to discredit the prosecution’s witnesses.

The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted four individuals while acquitting 15 others due to insufficient evidence linking them directly to the assault.

The High Court extensively analysed the arguments presented by both sides before affirming the convictions. It addressed multiple issues raised by the defence, including procedural irregularities, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the principle of parity with the acquitted co-accused.

One of the key arguments advanced by the defence pertained to the charge under Section 302 IPC against appellant Badal Sarkar. The defence asserted that no specific charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him, which resulted in a failure of justice. However, the court found that the order sheet recorded on the date of framing charges clearly mentioned that all 19 accused were charged under Sections 143, 448, 341, 326, and 302 IPC. The court cited legal precedents to hold that procedural defects do not vitiate the trial unless they result in actual prejudice against the accused. Since the defense was fully aware of the nature of the allegations, the court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice.

The court also rejected the defence’s argument that the four convicted individuals should be acquitted on the grounds of parity with the 15 co-accused who were acquitted. The court observed that multiple eyewitnesses had consistently identified the four appellants as active participants in the attack. It further noted that the trial court had exercised its discretion in acquitting certain individuals due to insufficient direct evidence against them. However, the presence and active role of the four appellants in the crime were sufficiently established through credible witness testimonies.

Regarding the reliability of witness statements, the defence argued that inconsistencies in the depositions of PW1, PW2, and PW3 rendered their testimony unreliable. The High Court, however, dismissed this contention, stating that minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies are natural and do not undermine the core facts of the case. The court cited judicial precedents that state that discrepancies on trivial matters do not affect the credibility of prosecution witnesses when the overall narrative remains intact.

The delay in recording certain statements under Section 161 CrPC was also challenged by the defence. The court ruled that mere delay in recording statements does not automatically render them inadmissible unless the delay is unexplained or prejudicial to the defence. It held that in this case, the statements were corroborated by independent evidence, including medical and forensic reports.

The court also addressed the argument regarding the absence of a test identification parade (TIP) and the non-seizure of the weapons used in the crime. It stated that in cases where the accused and the witnesses belong to the same locality and are well-acquainted, a TIP is not necessary. Additionally, the non-seizure of weapons was not deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case, as the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim aligned with the descriptions provided by eyewitnesses regarding the weapons used.

In its final judgment, the High Court upheld the convictions of the four appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, affirming the trial court’s findings that they shared a common intention to kill the victim. The court-imposed life imprisonment along with lesser penalties for other associated offenses. Additionally, it directed the state authorities to take appropriate legal action if any new evidence emerged against the acquitted individuals.

Case Title: Sachindra Sarkar & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: C.R.A. 273 of 2017, C.R.A. 274 of 2017, C.R.A. 275 of 2017, C.R.A. 276 of 2017
Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]