Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 386

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.
Manirul Mallick - Appellant
Vs.
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 562 OF 2009
Decided On : 11-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Prabir Majumder, Adv. Mr. Snehansu Majumder, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Avishek Sinha, Adv.

Prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and unreliable testimonies can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(i)

(B) - Appeal against conviction and sentence for physical assault and possession of firearms - Conviction under Section 323 IPC instead of 307 IPC based on insufficient evidence supporting the claim of gunshot injury; prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt - Prosecution witnesses were related and lacked independency; inconsistencies in their testimony raised doubts about the incident - Faulty investigation further undermined the reliability of evidence. (Paras 1, 5, 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged a physical assault and gunshot injury inflicted by the appellant on the complainant, arising from a dispute over a debt. The appellant was convicted based on witness testimonies that later showed inconsistencies regarding the nature and occurrence of the incident.

Findings of Court:
The court found that due to multiple inconsistencies and the prosecution's failure to substantiate claims, the evidential weight was insufficient to maintain the conviction. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the failure of proof against him.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the reliability of the investigation, and whether the prosecution had proven the alleged gunshot injury beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must meet its burden of proof, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as gunshot injuries. The failure to produce independent corroborative witnesses and the presence of inconsistencies in testimonies were critical factors leading to doubt about the prosecution's case.

Result: The conviction and sentence against the appellant were set aside and he was acquitted of all charges.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and initial facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments of the appellant focused on inconsistencies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. prosecution's case and testimonies supporting injuries. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's scrutiny of evidence and locations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. analysis of the recovery of arms and testimonies. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. court's decision based on reasonable doubts. (Para 21 , 22)
7. final conclusion and order of acquittal. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the appellant against a judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 17th June 2009, passed by the Learned Additional District and Session Judge, Fast Track Court No (iv), Krishnanagar, Nadia in connection with Sessions Trial no (iii) (6) 2007, Sessions Case no 62 (4), 2007 thereby convicting the appellant herein for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 and under Section 25 (i) (B) of the Arms Act 1959 and thus sentencing him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code , and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay an fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for 1 month for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 (i) (B) of the Arms Act,1959.

Brief fact of the case

2. The prosecution case was launched on the basis of a complaint lodged before the officer-in-charge Krishnaganj Police Station, District Nadia on February 23, 2006 by one Surabuddin Mondal alleging physical assault against Manirul, the present appellant and also of gunshot injury by Manirul .The alleged incident took place on 22^nd of February, 2006 at about 9.30 P.M when said Surabuddin Mondal (1) Jahirbox Mondal,(2) Md. Harun Rasid,(iii) Md. Adalat Mondal (iv) Amir Hossain and the above named persons were sitting on a macha gossiping in front of a grocery shop of Yunis Ali of their village and Manirul Mallick came and he was asked by the de-facto complainant to pay Rs.45/- to him which he owed from him. Manirul denied to give the same and a scuffle took place between the de-facto complainant and Manirul and they fell on ground and thereafter Manirul brought out a revolver with an intention to kill him and shot him as a result he sustained a gunshot injury .

3. On the basis of such complaint the Krishnaganj Police Station case no 21/06 dated 23.02.2006 started under Section 307 IPC and along with 25/27 Arms Act and after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid Sections. The case being exclusively triable by a Sessions Judge was transferred after commitment to the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Nadia which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track court No. IV, Krishnanagar, Nadia for disposal. The charge was framed by Learned Trial Court under Section 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act and the content of the charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Hence the trial.

4. In order to prove the case the prosecution adduced 9 witnesses and proved the written complaint, seizure list, Arms expert report ,D.M. sanction ,rough sketch map of P.O. with index, copy of admission register of hospital which were marked as exhibited documents and one revolver, cartridge and label was marked as Mat exhibit 2 and 3. The defence case on the other hand was a complete denial and the incriminating materials were placed before the accused when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.Pc and after considering the facts and circumstances and after assessing the evidences adduced before the Court, the Learned Sessions Court passed the order of conviction under Se