Failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence constitutes a significant infirmity, allowing the court to draw adverse inferences regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the veracity of the prosecution's case.

The Court made the following:

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

The instant Criminal Revisions Case has been preferred against Order of Acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court in S.C.No.99 of 2000 wherein and where under, learned court below has acquitted all the respondent Nos.1 to 14 from the charge under Section 147, 148, 307, 324, 326 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘of I.P.C’).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution is that, defacto-complainant as well as other injured and the respondents herein are belong to same caste and they were engaged in the same profession. They were having disputes in between two groups in furtherance of enmity. on 30.07.1998, an altercation took place in petty family affairs. The petty family matters turned into huge altercation between the parties and thereby all the respondents armed with deadly weapons formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked defacto-complainant as well as other injured. By such PW.1 as well as other injured sustained severe bodily injuries and admitted into hospital. The matter was referred to police, accordingly the crime was registered.

3. To prove the prosecution case, twenty two (22) witnesses were examined, thirty four (34) documents were marked and seventeen (17) material objects were placed. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined. After recording evidences and after hearing parties, learned court below acquitted all the accused persons from the charges leveled against them and finding them not guilty. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Learned Trail has committed error and misread the evidences of prosecution. Learned court below has also not considered the exhibited documents. Learned Court below has not applied mind in scanning the evidences of prosecution witnesses. There are sufficient material before the learned Trial Court to hold that respondents were committed offence punishable under section 307 of the I.P.C. Prosecution witnesses are injured and eye witnesses, who specifically stated the factum of attack of respondents. All the evidences are corroborated to each other supported by the medical witness. Police have recorded the statements of available witnesses, which was also supported the prosecution case by reports of doctors. Doctor has examined the injured, though it appears that the injuries are on the vital part and grievous in nature. The learned Court below failed to appreciate the true nature of evidence of prosecution witnesses.

5. Learned court below has decide the issue in wrong manner, reasons thereby illegal order of acquittal was formal. He submits that prosecution has successfully bring home the charge against the petitioners but the learned Trial court has misread and mis-appreciate the evidences on record and acquitted the respondents. He prayed for necessary action.

Submissions of the respondents

6. Learned Trial Court has committed no error. There are case and counter-case between the parties, and in the alleged tussle, the parties/accused persons also sustained injuries. The accused persons also filed a criminal case before the police authorities, being Cr. No. 50 of 1998. However, the police did not properly investigate that case and proceeded only with Cr. No. 49 of 1998. There is no explanation from the prosecution as to how the accused persons sustained injuries in the same altercation. He further submits that the learned Court below has noted in its judgment the factum of inaction and bias on the part of the investigating agency in failing to properly investigate Cr. No. 50 of 1998.

7. He further submits that, in view of the observations of this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 898 of 2007, a Bench of this Court has categorically observed that if investigating agency did not investigate in a fair manner so as to elicit the truth, and that the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation regarding the injuries sustained by accused renders the prosecution evidence unreliab