Inconsistencies in witness testimonies can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.

1. The instant revision application has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 22nd August, 2019 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2018 wherein Ld. Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 17^th January, 2018 passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 6^th Court, Krishna Nagar, Nadia, in connection with G.R. Case No. 69 of 2005, thereby finding petitioners guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) [corresponding to 117(2)/3(5) of the BNS] and pronounced sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month.

2. Factual matrix of this case is that on 13.01.2005, at about 5.30 a.m. a dispute took place between the victim and the accused over the issue of supply of water for cultivation. During such dispute the accused assaulted the victim with a spade, resulting in facture injuries on his body.

3. On receipt of the complaint, Nakashipara Police Station Case No.14 of 2005 dated 13.01.2005 was registered under Sections 326/34 of the IPC [corresponding to 118(2)/ 3(5) of the BNS]. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323/325/34 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 115(2)/ 117(2)/ 3(5) of the BNS], before the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanager, Nadia who, in tern, transferred the same to the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Krishna Nagar, Nadia, for disposal. Ld. Magistrate, framed charge under Sections 325/34 of IPC and after trial he found all the accused guilty of committing offence under Section 325/34 of IPC and accordingly sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month each.

4. The judgment was assailed in appeal before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Nadia and the same was registered as Criminal Appeal no. 7 of 2018. Ld. Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Ld. Magistrate, relying on the evidence of complainant (PW1), victim (PW4), and the doctors (PW8 & PW10).

Argument advanced:-

5. At the very outset, Mr. Joydeep Biswas, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 namely Bhasan Sekh @ Bhasan Faraji already suffered entire period of the sentence and accordingly Mr. Biswas has not pressed the application on behalf of Bhasan Sekh.

6. Mr. Biswas by drawing my attention to the evidence of the wife (PW1) of the victim (PW4) has submitted that none of the independent witnesses including the wife of the victim supported the prosecution case of alleged assault here. He has further added that injury stated by the victim and his wife has also not been ratified by the doctors (PW8 & PW10). Before parting with his argument, Mr. Biswas has submitted that neither the Ld. Trial Court nor the Ld. Appellate Court appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Saryati Dutta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court perfectly appreciated the evidence of victim as well as doctors before coming to his final decision.

Analysis:-

8. The main allegation involved in this case revolves around a rancorous altercation that erupted between the injured and the accused, sparked by a discord over the issue of watering for cultivation, which ultimately culminated in the accused launching a violent assaul