Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 624

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
Balaram Ghosh @ Buro Ghosh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.R. 1633 of 2014
Decided On : 09-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Ms. Dhanasree Biswas, Ms. Poulami Bose
For the Respondent: Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal, Mr. Pratick Bose

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence and reliable documentation.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Criminal Appeal - Sections 308/324 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 308 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with the punishment for culpable homicide and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The court analyzed the evidence and arguments in light of these sections and their interpretations.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved an incident where the petitioner and three others were accused of hurling bombs, resulting in injuries to the victim. The prosecution presented witnesses and medical evidence to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:

The court found discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including delayed examination of the injured, doubts about the seizure list, and lack of independent witnesses. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of witnesses, delay in recording evidence, doubts about the seizure list, and the prosecution's failure to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence, the need for timely and reliable documentation, and the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The criminal revisional application was allowed, and the criminal appeal was disposed of in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by petitioner against an order dated 29th April, 2014 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014 upholding the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in S.T. No. VIII (May) 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 108 (3) 2013 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 308/324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs. 8000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

2. The prosecution case in short narrated one Paritosh Ghosh to have lodged an information with the Officer-in-Charge Dhubulia Police Station to the effect that over the issue of playing microphone on 15.10.2010, on 16.10.2010 at about 2 p.m. Sagar Ghosh, Dustu Ghosh, Buro Ghosh and Mithun Ghosh being armed with bombs in their hand come in front of temple of Goddes Durga and started throwing bombs. Consequently one Subhas Ghosh had sustained bomb injury on his abdomen and hand. The local people shifted Subhas Ghosh to Dhubulia Hospital wherefrom he was shifted to Shaktinagar Hospital for his treatment.

3. Petitioner along with three others had been placed on trial in connection with Dhubulia Police Station Case No. 406/2010 dated 16.10.2010 under Sections 326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

4. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Learned District Sessions Judge, Nadia and the same was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014.

5. By a judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2014 the Learned Sessions Judge, Nadia at Krishnagar was pleased to uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia at Krishnagar.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited certain document.

a) One Rabin Ghosh was examined as PW-1. In examination-in-chief he stated that he knew Subhas Ghosh. He had no knowledge about assault caused upon Subhas Ghosh. He knew accused persons namely Bachhan Ghosh, Sagar Ghosh, Balaram Ghosh and Dustu Ghosh prosecution had declared PW-1 as hostile witness. During the course of cross-examination he stated that he did not state to the Investigating Officer that all 4 accused persons hurled bombs at Subhas Ghosh.

b) One Banshibadan Ghosh was examined as PW-2. In examination-in-chief he stated that Subhas Ghosh was the son of his brother’s brother-in-law. A dispute occurred about two and half years ago involving the neighbours namely Dustu Ghosh, Balaram Ghosh, Sagar ghosh, in absence of PW-2. He later on heard that someone hurled bombs at Subhas. He did not know the names of the persons who hurled bombs. He identified his signature on the seizure list. During the course of cross-examination he stated that he had no knowledge about the contents of the seizure list.

c) Paritosh Ghosh was examined as PW-3. In examination-in-chief he stated that the incident occurred on 16.10.2010 Sagar Ghosh, Dustu Ghosh, Mithu Ghosh, Buro Ghosh hurled bombs in front of Durga Temple in May Kol village whereby Subhas Ghosh suffered injuries in his abdomen. Local people rushed to the spot. All of them fled at once. Local people carried Subhas Ghosh to Dhubulia Hospital for treatment. Therefrom he was shifted to Shaktinagar Hospital. He informed the police over telephone. Police visited the spot. He lodged complaint before the local police station against the accused persons. He wrote the complaint in his own handwriti