Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1106
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
Chuiya @ Binod Mahato – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRA 133 of 2009
Decided On : 31-07-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Tapas Kr. Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv., Ms. Suparna Chatterjee, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of reasonable doubt requires that if two interpretations of evidence are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail.
Headnote:
Criminal - Conviction - IPC Sections 304(2) - The court discussed the evidentiary standards under IPC Section 304(2) and the necessity for clear causation between the accused's actions and the victim's death, ultimately finding reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the death of a victim following an altercation, where the victim was assaulted and later died from his injuries. The prosecution alleged the appellant caused the fatal injuries, while the defense argued inconsistencies in the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, particularly regarding the cause of death and the timeline of medical treatment, leading to reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the victim's death through the alleged assault.
Ratio Decidendi: In criminal cases, if two views are possible on the evidence, the one favoring the accused must be adopted, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the conviction is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) :
1. In this appeal the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2009 as passed in Sessions Trial No.10 of 2007 arising out of Sessions Case No.79 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court Asansol, District Paschim Burdwan has been assailed. By the impugned judgement and order the trial court found the accused Chuiya @ Binod Mahato (the appellant herein) guilty of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and thus sentenced him to suffer R.I for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-i.d to suffer R.I for five months more.
2. The convict felt aggrieved and preferred the instant appeal.
3. For effective disposal of the instant appeal the facts leading to initiation of the aforesaid Sessions trial is required to be dealt with in a nutshell.
4. One Parbati Shaw, wife of Naresh Shaw of Rail par, Depo Para (Chai rasta), Asansol (North) lodged a written complaint dated 12.08.2000 with the O/C Asansol (North) P.S stating inter alia, that on 11.08.2000 at about 1:00 p.m her husband was supervising the construction of brick built boundary wall and at that time one Chuiya son of Bideshi Mahato pulled down the said boundary wall. Consequently an altercation took place between her husband and the said Chuiya and immediately thereafter the said Chuiya and his brother Kanchaiya started beating her husband with stick and rod. It has been stated further in the said written complaint that on account of such assault her husband sustained bleeding injury on his head and he fell down on earth. The informant rushed to the spot and raised alarm and thereafter the assailants fled away and immediately thereafter the victim was brought to Asansol Sub-divisional Hospital where he was admitted for treatment.
5. On the basis of such written complaint Asansol P.S case no.80 of 2000 dated 12.08.2000 under Sections 341/325 IPC was started. Subsequently the victim of the said assault succumbed to his injuries and thus Section 304 IPC was added.
6. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet under Sections 341/325/304 IPC was submitted against the present appellant. After commitment and transfer, the trial court considered the charges against the accused and framed charges under Sections 341/304 IPC against the accused on 28.11.2006.
7. In order to prove the charges as against the accused the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in all and several documents have been exhibited on their behalf. Trial court record reveals that the defence has chosen not to adduce evidence but from the trend of cross examination and the answers as given by the accused under Section 313 CrPC it appears that the defence case is based on clear denial and false implication.
8. For convenience a brief description of the prosecution witnesses are necessary and those are as under:-
a. PW1-A medical officer posted at Asansol Sub-divisional Hospital at the relevant time and who admitted the victim on 11.08.2000.
b. PW2-A resident of Gopalnagar, Rail par who has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
c. PW3-An autopsy surgeon who performed post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased.
d. PW4-Another medical officer of Asansol Sub-divisional Hospital who readmitted the victim on 13.08.2000.
e. PW5-The informant and the wife of the deceased.
f. PW6-A resident of the locality of the deceased and the informant.
g. PW7-A resident of Gopalnagar area, a rickshaw puller who took the victim on 11.08.2000 to Asansol Sub-divisional Hospital.
h. PW8-Recording Officer.
i. PW9-The scribe of the written complaint.
j. PW10-A constable of police who took the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination to the morgue.
k. PW11-The Investigating Officer.
9. Mr. Tapas Kr. Ghosh, learned advocate duly assisted by Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury, learned advocate for the appellant draws attention of this Court to the evidence of PW1 vis-à-vis Exhibit 1 being the injury report of the deceased. It is submi
