CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Chaitali Chatterjee Das, J.
Sher Singh @ Satya Narayan Chouhan – Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRA 680 of 2007 with IA No. CRAN/1/2008 (OLD No. CRAN/293/2008)
Decided on 11.6.2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 394 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Robbery – Conviction and sentence – One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character – Order of conviction can be passed on the basis of sole testimony of injured witness subject to the fact that same is trustworthy enough to be relied upon and if doubts occurs about reliability then corroboration is necessary – In instant case, excepting statement made before police station by de facto injured complainant, no other oral or documentary evidence can be found to support the same – Treating doctor was not cited as witness nor injury report was produced to substantiate de-facto sustained injury – I.O did not collect injury report which could otherwise be relied upon for the purpose of corroboration – Not a single witness has come forward to support prosecution case – Prosecution has not been able to establish cogently participation of accused /appellants in instant case on the basis of sole testimony of de-facto complainant – Judgment and order of conviction set aside. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Chaitali Chatterjee Das, J.—This Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order dated September 29, 2007 passed by the learned, Additional Sessions, Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Asansol, Burdwan, in Sessions Trial number 38 / 2006 and Session case no.5/2006, convicting the appellant under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 only.
2. Bereft of any details ,the prosecution case was launched on the basis of statement of Ram Lakshman Mehra, son of late Bishnu Mehra, loco driver, Chinakuri, Imli Dhwara, Police station, Kulti District Burdwan made before the police officer of Neyatnatpur Out Post at P.S Kulti, which was treated as the written complaint. It was stated by said, Ram Laxman Mehra, who was working as Loco driver at Chinakuri colliery that on 16.10.1990, he and his son Kadam Dev were sleeping in his quarter in the night at about 10 P.M., then at about 1am on 17.10.90 Kote Singh asked repeatedly to open the door with a threat to break open the door.
3. On refusal to open the door he threatened to break open then out of fear he opened the door and found three persons who entered into the room are 1) Share Singh, a resident of Burnpur and used to come at Chinakuri No. 1 pit 2) Lalu Lama son of late Fulwa Singh Lama working as line mistri at China Kuri No .1 pit, and Milan a resident of Ramghat Chinakuri. They entered into his room, and noticed, Sher Singh had a Bhojali in his hand, Lalu had a Tangri in his hand and knife in the hand of Milan. Lalu hit him on his head with the backside of Tangri as a result he suffered injury with profuse bleeding in his head, Milan hold the knife on his neck, Sher Singh asked him to give money quickly. Out of fear, his son gave ¹ 40, then those persons took away one cream coloured woollen shawl, one three cell jeep torch, one Orient wristwatch. After they left one man entered crossing the wall of his cousin brother Jagdish Mehra and opened the door and all three entered inside.
4. The complainant and his son did not go out of the house .His brother’s quarter is adjacent to his quarter, and heard an altercation and scuffing from his house, and thereafter it was silent .After sometime at about 3.30, this complainant heard hue and cry in the locality and thereafter all the people started to assemble and then they also came out. He along with his son, Kadam Deo, Prashant Mehra, Nazar Ali & Dukha Prasad Dukhi Mehna, Prakash Mehra, and many people of the locality, entered into the house of his cousin and found his cousin lying dead in the room with profuse bleeding. His cousin sustained one deep injury on the neck and it was stated to them by Nazar Ali, Dukha Prasad, Dukhi, Mehra, that Sher Singh , Lalu Lama, and Milan forcibly barged into their houses consecutively between 12 to 1 o’clock at night and assaulted someone and threatened someone and snatched away, silver chain, earring from the house of Dukha Prasad, silver necklace, one pair earring, Payel, Anglo Swiss wristwatch and liquid cash of Rs. 900/- from the quarter of the Dukhi Mehera ,one Anglo wrist watch and liquid cash of around 120 from Prakash Mehra and Rs 950/- from the house of Nazar Ali. They threatened all the persons to kill if they come out of their houses. Those three persons were known to every one of that locality being resident who had a history of snatching and burglaries.
5. On the basis of their said statement Kulti P.S. case number 254/90 dated 17.10.90 started under Section 394/302/304 I.P.C against the accused persons. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted under section 394/302/304 I.P.C against Sher Singh Alias Satya Narayan Chauhan. The other accused Milan Bengali was shown as absconder and order of proclamation of warrant was issued and Lalu Lama alias Lalu Nepali died on 14 .9. 91 at SD Hospital, Asansol. After commitment, the formal charg
Robbery – One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character – Order of conviction can be passed on the basis of sole testimony of injured witness.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favor of the accused when the evidence is inconsistent and unreliable.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the conviction's reversal.
Conviction cannot be sustained based on uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of the victim, failing to meet evidentiary standards in sexual assault cases.
The need for consistency and credibility in evaluating evidence in criminal cases, and the requirement to prove common intention under S.149 IPC.
The conviction under Section 323 IPC was overturned due to discrepancies in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence supporting the prosecution's claims.
Murder – It is duty of prosecution to establish use of weapon discovered in commission of crime – Failure to do so may cause aberration in course of justice.
The importance of credible eyewitness testimony, reliable and clinching evidence, and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except guilt in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction for murder cannot be sustained without corroborated and reliable testimony, especially when relying on child witnesses whose statements showed significant contradictions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.