Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Jiten Barman - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2015
Decided On : 11-01-2023
BURNING WITH ACID - SECTION 326A IPC - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUSPICION - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 437A CRPC - WITNESSES - IDENTIFICATION - HOSTILE WITNESSES - EYE WITNESSES - INJURY REPORT - EVIDENCE ACT - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE - APPELLANT AND CO-CONVICTION ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for throwing acid on two victims, Sampa Barman and her niece Sastika Barman, while they were sleeping in their father's house. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his friend Gajen Jana committed the crime because the appellant was in love with Sampa Barman and she had rejected his proposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the victims could not identify the appellant as the person who threw acid on them, and that none of the family members or neighbors witnessed the incident. The court also found that the prosecution's case was based on suspicion and conjecture, and that the medical evidence did not conclusively establish that the injuries were caused by acid.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the medical evidence conclusively established that the injuries were caused by acid. 3. Whether the prosecution's case was based on suspicion and conjecture.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. The medical evidence did not conclusively establish that the injuries were caused by acid. 3. The prosecution's case was based on suspicion and conjecture.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence and acquitted him of the charges. The court also acquitted the co-convict, Gajen Jana, who had not filed an appeal against his conviction.
JUDGMENT
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. - The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2015 and 18.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk in Sessions Trial No. 3(11)/2014 arising out of Sessions Case No. 299 (June) of 2014 whereby convicting and sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 326A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
PROSECUTION CASE:
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that one Smt. Pampa Barman, the mother and sister of the victims alleged that on 10.08.2013 at night after having dinner her daughter, Sastika Barman and sister, Shampa Barman had been sleeping in the father's house. At about 2 a.m. at night her sister and daughter started shouting loudly. After awakening parents of the complainant immediately switched on the electric light and noticed the face, breast of her sister and the belly, hand and leg of her daughter were burnt extensively with blisters. It was suffocating in the whole room by the essence of carbolic acid. Immediately her sister and daughter were removed to hospital for their treatment. Both were admitted in Tamluk District hospital in serious condition.
3. It was further alleged that Jiten Barman S/o- Dipak Barman of Rajanagar Baharjola, P.S.- Tamluk and his friend Gajen Jana S/o- Naru Jana of Kalapenya P.S.- Nandakumar, District- Purba Medinipur used to tease her sister in various manner while going to school on the road. Jiten Barman used to propose her for marriage. As her sister disagreed with his proposal, Jiten Barman used to express if she does not marry him he would make her condition so that no man of the world would marry her and also expressed that human being would be frightened by seeing her face. As her sister informed about the incident to her parents, they stopped her from going to school or on the road and promptly arranged for the marriage of her sister. Date was proposed for the visit of bride groom's party from Haur on 11.08.2013 for betrothal. It was her strong belief that coming to know this fact Jiten Barman and his friend Gajen Jana had spoiled the life of her sister and daughter by throwing acid on their persons. She submitted a written complaint to that effect in resulting Tamluk P.S. Case No. 338 of 2013 dated 11.08.2013 had been started under Section 450/326A/307 I.P.C. against the appellant and his friend Gajen Jana.
4. The Officer-in-Charge, Tamluk P.S. initially entrusted the said case for investigation to S.I. Swapan Chabri, who subsequently on his transfer investigation was transferred to another police officer, Sri Maniklal Adak. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and Gajen Jana under Section 450/326A/307/34 of the I.P.C.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:
5. The case was committed to the Learned Court of Session after taking cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as the case was a sessions triable one. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk for trial and disposal.
6. Charge was framed under Section 450/326A/307/34 of the I.P.C. against the appellant and Gajen Jana, who were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited number of documents as Exhibits 1 to 14 and material Exhibits I and II respectively.
7. Defence of the appellant was that he is innocence and false implication. During questioning by the Court under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant made a simple denial, though incriminating materials both oral and documentary were brought to his notice. No evidence adduced from the side of defence.
8. After appreciation of the oral evidence and considering the documents exhibited by the prosecution, the Trial Judge, by impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the
In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot take t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on testimonies, medical evidence, and the appellant's history of harassment to establish guilt and determine the appropriate sentence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on convincing and trustworthy oral and medical evidence to affirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence of acid....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence can support claims in absence of direct identification.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere testimony of the victim is insufficient without corroboration.
Credible eyewitness testimony, corroborative medical evidence, and material witnesses are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The burden of proof on the accused, the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the use of chain of circumstances to establish the offence beyond reasonable dou....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases where motive and identity are crucial for conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
