Defective charge framing and unexplained FIR delay undermine the integrity of the trial, necessitating acquittal due to reasonable doubt on prosecution credibility.

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 the same day, at approximately 4:00 P.M., the complainant Amit Shit along with Subrata Giri and Gorachand Mandi proceeded to the Gopiballavpur Primary Health Centre on a motorcycle for medical treatment. After receiving treatment, while the trio was returning to their village around 6:00 P.M., and when they were about to enter village Chamarbandh, they allegedly noticed the present appellant and another person standing on the road, one armed with a tangi (axe) and the other with bow and arrows. The appellant, holding the tangi, allegedly struck Subrata Giri on the head. However, since Subrata was wearing a helmet, the tangi blow fell upon the helmet, breaking its handle which dropped to the ground. The complainant (PW1) claimed that he attempted to pick up the broken tangi from the ground, but the other accused, who was armed with bow and arrow, moved towards him, forcing him to retreat. Taking advantage of the situation, the appellant allegedly picked up the tangi again and struck Subrata on his face. It was further alleged that the other accused aimed his bow and arrow at the complainant, causing him to flee into the nearby jungle out of fear. The complainant then informed the villagers about the occurrence. Subsequently, Subrata Giri, who was found in a bleeding condition, was taken to Gopiballavpur Primary Health Centre for medical assistance. As his condition worsened, he was later referred to Jhargram Hospital for further treatment. On the basis of the said complaint, a case being Nayagram Police Station Case No. 23/91 dated 21.05.1991 was registered against Rengta (the present appellant) and Bir Hansda, under Sections 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging their involvement in the said assaults forming part of two distinct incidents that occurred on the same day.”

5. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency against this appellant and the other acquitted accused under Sections 326 , 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge has been framed by the Trial Court against the accused persons under /34, 307/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. One of the charge-sheeted accused namely, Srikanta Dandapat died during pendency of the case.

6. In this case, eleven (11) witnesses were cited by the side of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibits on its behalf. Neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused persons.

7. Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf o