Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PRASENJIT BISWAS
Rengta Hansda @ Bhuto – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 22.02.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Midnapore, in Sessions Trial No. XIV of September, 1994 on behalf of the appellant.
2. By passing the impugned judgment, the present appellant was found guilty for commission of offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal has been preferred at the behest of the appellant-convict.
4. In brief, the prosecution story as projected in this case may be summarised as follows:
“The present case originated from a written complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, alleging that on 20.05.1991, at around 3:00 P.M., during the ongoing election process at village Chamarbandh, PW1, namely Amit Shit, was allegedly assaulted with a ‘lathi’ by Bir Hansda, resulting in an injury to his shoulder. Later on th
Defective charge framing and unexplained FIR delay undermine the integrity of the trial, necessitating acquittal due to reasonable doubt on prosecution credibility.
Conviction upheld for grievous hurt under IPC 326, but quashed for attempted murder under IPC 307 due to lack of evidence of intent.
Non-examination of the Investigating Officer and critical medical witnesses raises doubts about the prosecution's case, necessitating acquittal due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Delay in FIR, if satisfactorily explained, does not affect the prosecution case; non-seizure of a weapon does not negate established evidence of guilt.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to examine the Investigating Officer can result in significant prejudice to the accused, as demonstrated in this case.
Delay in FIR and pre-FIR inquest not vitiating trial absent prejudice; reliable natural witness testimony, corroborated by medical/weapon evidence, suffices for murder conviction despite inconclusive....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and failure to examine material witnesses led to the appellant's acquittal.
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
