Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.
Jagannath Biswas and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal and Anr. - Respondents
C.R.A. No. 531 of 2008
Decided On : 31-10-2014
For the Appellant No. 1 :Souvik Mitter and Ayan Basu, Advocates
For the Appellant Nos. 2 to 8 :Asish Sanyal and Iqbal Hussain, Advocates
For the State :Madhusudan Sur, Advocate
In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution's evidence is marred by factual discrepancies and inconsistencies, and the victim's statements and witness accounts are unreliable, the accused are entitled to acquittal.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 341/326/307 READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC - FACTUAL DISCREPANCIES - INCONSISTENT VICTIM STATEMENTS - UNRELIABLE WITNESS ACCOUNTS - ABSENCE OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE - IDENTITY OF ASSAILANTS NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - APPELLANTS ENTITLED TO ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
In a criminal appeal challenging convictions under Sections 341/326/307 read with Section 34 IPC, the court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found several factual discrepancies and inconsistencies in the victim's statements, as well as unreliable accounts from witnesses. The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellants as the assailants beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution established the identity of the appellants as the assailants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the victim's statements and witness accounts were credible and reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's case was marred by factual discrepancies and inconsistencies, including the victim's varying accounts of the incident and unreliable witness testimonies. In the absence of credible evidence establishing the appellants' identity as the assailants, the court concluded that the appellants were entitled to acquittal.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and ordered the appellants' discharge from their bail bonds.
Ashim Kumar Roy, J.
In a Sessions Trial held before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track - 3rd Court, Barrackpore, 24 Parganas (N) total 8 persons viz. Jagannath Biswas, Chitta Sarkar, Tapas Biswas, Robin Ray, Sripati Majumder, Ashu Bairagi, Nitya Biswas and Swapan Biswas were convicted under Section 341/326/307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I for 10 days for their conviction under 341/34 I.P.C, to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I for 1 year under Section 326/34 I.P.C, to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I for 1 year under Section 307/34 I.P.C.
Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence all the aforesaid 8 convicts preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 2008 before this High Court. The said appeal was then came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta and Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee. After hearing of the appeal while Justice Girish Chandra Gupta was of the opinion that except appellant Jagannath Biswas, the prosecution was not able to establish the charges against the remaining 7, and while upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Jagannath Biswas acquitted the remaining 7 convicts, whereas the Hon'ble Justice Indira Banerjee was of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove charges against all the 8 appellants and they were entitled to acquittal. In view of such difference of opinion the appeal has now been referred before this Court under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Mr. Ashis Sanyal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 7 appellants, in respect of whom both the learned Judges of the Division Bench were consensus in their opinion that against them no charge has been established for which they were convicted, vehemently contended that in this reference under Section 392 Cr.P.C. this court is devoid of any jurisdiction to reopen their case. He further contended both the learned Judges of the Division Bench having concurred that those 7 appellants were entitled to acquittal and thus allowed the appeal, in this reference it would not be permissible for this Court to form any opinion as to the correctness of the same. In this regard he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1972 SC 1502, the background of facts of that case, were as follows:
Two accuseds Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop were tried before the Special Judge, Ganganagar for offences under Section 120B IPC for conspiring to extort a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from one Niranjan Das. In addition to that Bhagat Ram was also charged under Section 161/218/347/389 IPC and under Section 5(1)(a) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, while Ram Swaroop was additionally charged under Section 165A IPC. Both of them were acquitted in the trial, when the State of Rajasthan preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging their acquittal. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench and same was dismissed, so far that relates to the order of acquittal of Ram Swaroop in respect of all offences. The Division Bench also dismissed the said appeal against the acquittal of Bhagat Ram, so far that relates to the offences punishable under section 347/218/389/120B IPC. However, there was a difference of opinion between the learned Judges on the point as to whether the acquittal of Bhagat Ram for offences under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should be maintained or not. Accordingly, the said appeal was referred under Section 429 Cr.P.C, 1898 (new section 392 Cr.P.C., 1973) before a Single Judge. While one of the learned Judges was of the opinion that the order of acquittal of Bhagat Ram for offences und
