Oral Testimony Cannot Sustain Conviction For Damaging Public Property Without Seizure, Identification Or Expert Proof Of Damage: Calcutta High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Calcutta Circuit Bench at Port Blair, Single Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, has acquitted a man previously convicted of damaging equipment at a government hospital, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the absence of any seizure of the allegedly damaged property, lack of expert opinion on the extent of damage, and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade created significant gaps in the prosecution's evidence that oral testimony alone could not bridge. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed in appeal was set aside, and the accused was directed to be released forthwith.
The matter originated from an FIR lodged on 24 June 2019 alleging damage to government hospital property at Garacharma following the death of a patient. The FIR recorded that the patient’s relatives and neighbours created a disturbance and damaged medical equipment including a suction apparatus and oxygen regulator. The FIR did not name any accused and was registered against an unknown person.
The petitioner was arrested more than a year later, on 20 October 2020. During trial, prosecution witnesses identified the petitioner as responsible for the damage. The Judicial Magistrate convicted him under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and released him on admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 CrPC. The conviction was affirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal.
The petitioner challenged the conviction, contending that no test identification parade was conducted, no damaged property was seized or produced, and no expert opinion was obtained to prove damage. The State argued that direct evidence of witnesses was sufficient and that the petitioner was identified during trial.
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed: “The duty of the Court is to see whether an allegation made against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt or not.” The Court recorded the FIR contents: “The patient party started shouting and they have damaged PHC, Garacharma. Medical property such as Suction Apparatus and Oxygen Regulator with flow metor.”
It was noted: “It goes to show that not only one person but there are several persons who allegedly committed such offence but the formal F.I.R. shows that the F.I.R. was lodged only against one unknown person.”
The Court stated: “The F.I.R. does not disclose the name of the petitioner as Rakesh Kumar but if we peruse the deposition of PW-1 to PW-4 we shall find that the present petitioner was identified by his name also. When and how did the said witnesses come to know about the name of the petitioner? It is not clear from the evidence of those witnesses.”
On seizure, the Court observed: “Although there was an allegation that properties of the government were damaged no such properties were seized under a proper seizure list.”
The Court further stated: “It is usually seen that in this type of cases, such properties are seized under a proper seizure list and thereafter the same can be returned to the government hospital after taking a zimmanama bond… But that is not done here.”
On evidence, the Court recorded: “It is astonishing that no such damaged property was produced before the Learned Trial Court. It is also correct that no expert opinion was collected to substantiate the extent of damage. Needless to mention that a relevant fact is to be proved by the best evidence rule.”
The Court concluded: “The prosecution cannot ask to rely on the deposition of specific witnesses particularly when there was opportunity to produce best evidence to prove the case against the accused beyond doubt.”
The Court directed: “Therefore, I find that the prosecution case was not proved in accordance with the settled principles of law and hence, the petitioner is entitled to be acquitted from the charges of the case.”
“The judgment and order dated 19.12.2025 of the Appellate Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Port Blair in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2025 affirming the judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-I at Port Blair in G. R. Case No. 120/2019, is hereby set aside. CRR/2/2026 is allowed. The convict be released at once. He is acquitted from all charges as stated above. Bail bond stands discharged.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. D. Ilango
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar
Case Title: T. R. Rakesh Kumar vs The State
Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-PB:6
Case Number: CRR/2/2026
Bench: Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
