Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Niyati Karan – Appellant
Versus
Khandu Kharah And Ors. – Respondents
C.R.A. 631 of 2007
Decided On : 06-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Provas Bhattacharyya
For the Respondent: Mr. Usof Ali Dewan

An appellate court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, manifestly unreasonable, or wholly unsupported by evidence. The prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the offenses beyond reasonable doubt, especially when property disputes suggest underlying bias.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 324, 379 and 506 - Criminal Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate Court’s power to interfere - Presumption of innocence remains fortified by acquittal - Interference not warranted unless findings are manifestly unreasonable or wholly unsupported by evidence - Mere possibility of another view is insufficient. (Paras 16 and 17)

(B) Unlawful Assembly - Proof of common object - Prosecution must establish distinct roles of accused - Mere presence in a gathering without establishing common object is insufficient for vicarious liability. (Para 9)

(C) Theft - Proof of dishonest removal - Essential to prove exclusive possession against conflicting claims, especially in property disputes - Interested testimony unsubstantiated by evidence insufficient for conviction. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged an order of acquittal concerning charges of rioting, hurt, theft, and criminal intimidation. The incidents arose from a dispute over the possession and utility of a water body, which had been subjected to prior civil litigation and historical hostility between the factions. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies and lacking in evidence regarding the specific roles of the accused and the possession of the property.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational ingredients of the charged offenses. The narrative was inconsistent, the testimony was provided by interested individuals with historical animosity, and the evidence regarding property possession was clouded by ongoing civil discord. The trial court’s reasoning was found to be plausible and reasoned, warranting no interference.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence sufficiently proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court, when reviewing an acquittal, must respect the presumption of innocence upheld by the trial court. In the absence of proof of common object in an assembly or clear identification of individual overt acts, and given the uncertainty of property possession due to civil disputes, the conviction cannot be sustained.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of prosecution case and formal framing of charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5)
2. appellant's submission on evidence corroboration and proving guilt. (Para 6)
3. respondent's submission on testimonial inconsistencies and prior litigations. (Para 7)
4. assessment of witness credibility, impact of prior animosity, and evidentiary gaps. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. requirements for proving theft and appellate standards for reviewing acquittal orders. (Para 12 , 16)
6. final confirmation of acquittal and dismissal of the criminal appeal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.05.2007 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur (Sadar) in T.R. No.121/1994 arising out of CR 639 of 1994 acquitting the appellant of the charge under Sections 148/149/324/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 18.06.1994 at about 10 p.m., the accused persons under the leadership of Sri Dinesh Chandra Bhattacharya went to the pond of the complainant at Plot No. 155 and 156 under Mouza- Asnaboni with arms, deadly weapons, fishing net and started angling from the pond. Accused Paban Kumar Ghosh had gun in his hand. The accused persons caught about 3 quintals of fish from the pond and fled. The witnesses saw the entire incident but could not resist and restrain them as the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons. Prior to that incident, the accused persons had assaulted the complainant’s husband Saktipada Karam and his maternal uncle Sri Bamapada Ghosh with “tangi” on 18.06.1994 at about 04:30 p.m. The injured persons were taken to the hospital by the police, where subsequently the complainant’s husband died. The accused persons committed theft of fish from the pond of the complainant valued about Rs.6,500/-

The complainant also informed the matter to the local police, who failed to take any action on (G.D.E. No.430/94) dated 22.06.1994 and consequently the complainant also filed one declaratory suit in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2nd Court. Learned Court passed an ad interim order of injunction directing both parties to maintain status quo which was communicated to those accused persons on 18.06.1994 at around 02:00 p.m., and thereafter the accused persons committed such an act.

3. Based on the aforesaid complaint, 4. charge was framed on 14.11.2006 under Sections 148/149/324/379/506 of Indian Penal Code against 31 accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows:-

i. “PW-1, Niyati Karam, was the complainant in that case. During his examination-in-chief stated that the incident took place on 3rd Ashar, 1401 B.S., at about 04:00/4.30 p.m. At that time and date, Rabi Ghosh came to the pond to catch fish. Her husband protested at this, then the accused persons assaulted him with fists and blows and he fell down near the pond. On hearing his cry herself and others went to the spot and rescued him and sent him to hospital. On that day at about 10.30 p.m., the accused persons who were named in the complaint being armed with lathi, gun etc., assembled on the bank and caught fish from the pond. He further stated that she tried to resist them but the accused persons assaulted by fist, blows and kicks. She further stated that the pond was situated on plot no.155 and 156 of Asnaboni Mouza and due to such theft of fish, she sustained a loss of huge amount.

During his cross-examination PW-1 stated that at relevant time the pond was surrounded by concrete. Police came for investigation, after her husband received injury. Bamapada Ghosh, who was admitted at Chandmari Hospital from the evening on that day and was released after few days. She further denied