The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where witness testimony is marred by inconsistencies, lacks corroboration, and fails to reconcile ocular evidence with medical reports, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, particularly when investigative procedural lapses and documentation failures persist.

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. Assailing the judgement and order of conviction passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, 18th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas South on May 22,2015 and June 2, 2015 in Sessions Trial no. 05(02)09, whereby the appellant is convicted for the offence committed under Section 323/353 and Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment for a term of 3 years with fine of Rs. 500 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for 2 years with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple imprisonment for 3 years and 3 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been .

Brief Resume of the Case

2. A complaint was lodged by constable 722 Binod Kumar working at D.E.B 24 Parganas South, on February 5, 2006 around 5 P.M. in connection with the investigation of a case when he with D.E.O. went to a shop of Mahadeb Mondal at Bakrahat Kirtankhola market. At the time the adjacent VCD shops owner Sanat Jana informed the complainant about the other VCD shops running illegally dealing with Dirty VCD business and requested him to visit those shops and when the complainant proceeded followed by him, suddenly Sanjay Jana assaulted on his head from his back and before he could resist him by holding his hand the appellant assaulted with the hammer on his forehead and upper part of his eye and then he fled away. On hearing his shouting Mahadeb Mondal, Sahadeb Sahu all rushed there and rescued the complainant from Sanat Jana and thereafter his D.E.O. Kartick Chandra Bhomick the auto driver Balaram Gyen reached there and then he was taken to local Muchisa Hospital for the purpose of treatment where the wounds were stitched on the upper part of his right eye and backside of his with an advice to do a scan and also to prescribed medicine. He also submitted his injury report and his blood stained wearing apparels along with this complaint to the Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint Bishnupur P.S.case no. 25/5/2006 under Section 325/326/353/186 stared against the present appellant and on completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet incorporating Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. The Learned Court framed the charge under Section 325/353/186/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant and the said charge was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced.

Submissions

3. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case which is apparent from the entire facts and circumstances narrated by the de facto complainant who is Police Officer. There was no recovery of offending weapon as stated in the complaint there are contradictory statement adduced by the witnesses which is not tallying with the case of the de facto complainant. It is further argued that from the nature of allegation levelled it is clear that he went to the spot along with his D.E.O. for the purpose of investigation of a different case and only on the request of the present appellant he went to visit to the other shops. There is absolutely no mens rea and it is improbable that suddenly a shop owner would assault a Police Officer. It is further argued the presence of D.E.O is questionab