Harka Bahadur Karki vs State of West Bengal

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Cal) 766

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.
Harka Bahadur Karki – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. 216 of 1991
Decided On : 13-11-2025

Important Points

A conviction cannot be upheld if the prosecution fails to establish the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, compounded by unreliable testimonies and contradictory medical evidence.

Subject

Criminal Law - Appeals

Act Referred

INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.304 PART II, S.304
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA: S.481
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.437

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 304A - Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - The appellant was sentenced to two years for causing death by negligence - The conviction was based on testimonies that failed to compellingly identify the assailants due to poor visibility - No corroborative or reliable evidence supported the prosecution's claims, leading to doubts about the appellant's involvement - Medical evidence suggested injuries could have been from accidental falls rather than from stones thrown as alleged. (Paras 2, 32, 60)

(B) Standard of proof - The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not met in this case due to numerous inconsistencies and lack of credible identification. (Paras 62, 63)

Findings of Court:
The convictions were found to be unsustainable due to insufficient evidence linking the appellant to the alleged crime.

Issues: Whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The lack of credible identification evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies cannot sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Md. Sabir Ahmed, Mr. Abdur Rakib, Mr. Biswajit Sarkar, Mr. Mojahid Mehedi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Bidyut Kumar Ray, Ms. Manashi Roy.

Table of Content
1. appeal against conviction (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. overview of prosecution's case (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. defendant's unsustainable conviction argument (Para 7 , 8)
4. credibility of witness identifications (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. contradiction between medical and eyewitness testimony (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. allegations of false implication (Para 17 , 18)
7. request to overturn conviction (Para 19)
8. prosecution's defense arguments (Para 20 , 21)
9. support from injured witnesses and medical evidence (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
10. entrustment of case integrity (Para 26 , 27)
11. importance of identification in assault cases (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
12. issues related to visibility during the incident (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
13. deficiencies in physical evidence collection (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
14. uncertainty in witness testimonies affecting credibility (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
15. absence of eyewitness accounts reflecting prosecution failures (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
16. lack of incrimination from a key witness (Para 57 , 58 , 59)
17. medical evidence substantiating accidental injuries (Para 60 , 61 , 62)
18. decision to overturn trial court ruling (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
19. directions for trial court processes (Para 68 , 69)

Judgment :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darjeeling, in connection with Sessions Case No. 17/89.

2. By passing the impugned judgment this appellant found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal is preferred at the instance of the appellant.

4. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:

“A complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant stating, inter alia, that on 6th January, 1984 he along with his companions were returning to a Marebong Tea Estate after having their marking at Janbari and as soon as they reached near Changtong Tea Estate they were chased by the group of assailants. The said assailants were throwing stones aiming on them and being so chased a few of this group turned towards the nearby village and the rest started running towards falls area. It is said in the said complaint that the group of assailants consisting of this appellant and other accused persons. It is stated that because of being hit by the stones hurled by the assailants, four persons of the group of the defacto complainant sustained severe injuries and two of them died on the spot. The two injured persons i.e. Maniprasad Rai and Bhai Bahadur Rai the injured persons regained their consciousness and started raising alarm. Hearing such alarm the nearby villagers including the fellowman of the group of companions of the complainant who took shelter in the village arranged for shifting the injured and the dead person to the hospital. Over this complainant a case being Pulbazar P.S. Case No. 2/48 dated 07.01.1984 was started.”

5. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Agency. Charge was framed by the Trial Court under Section 304 , Part-II of I.P.C.

6. In this case, thirteen (13) witnesses were examined on behalf 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 defence.

7. Mr. Md. Sabir Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has strenuously argued that upon a proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials available on record, it becomes evident that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court are unsustainable in law and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

8. The learned Advocate has submitted that the charges framed aga