Conviction based on witness testimonies from interested parties without independent corroboration is unsustainable due to inherent unreliability.

Judgment :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated March 30, 1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Midnapore in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 13^th April, 1987.

2. By passing the impugned judgment, these appellants were found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 304 Part-I/149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years along with payment of fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, these present appellants have preferred this instant appeal.

4. The prosecution’s case, in a nutshell, is as follows:

“The present case originated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the alleged victim. In her complaint dated 11.06.1985, she stated, interalia, that her husband, the victim, had been summoned to a meeting held at the Sripur Gangcha Club Ghar. Another individual, one Ganesh Santra, was also called to the said meeting through the accused persons, namely Khandu Bagdi and Madhu Choudhury. According to the written complaint, during the course of the meeting, the victim, Madhusudan Garai, along with Ganesh Santra, was allegedly found guilty of involvement in an illicit affair concerning a woman. The complaint further states that upon hearing the alarm raised by the victim, the de-facto complainant immediately rushed to the scene and discovered that her husband was being mercilessly beaten by villagers. As a consequence of the assault, the victim became nearly unconscious. The complainant alleged that the assault was perpetrated by the accused persons named in the First Information Report (FIR). Subsequently, the injured victim was taken to the hospital with the assistance of local residents. The written complaint, prepared by one Sudhangshu Bera on behalf of the de-facto complainant, was lodged with the police on the morning following the incident. Pursuant to the complaint, the concerned police station registered a case against the appellants under Sections 147, 149, 341, and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby initiating criminal proceedings. After the completion of investigation, the prosecuting agency submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons. In the charge-sheet, the accused were formally charged under Sections 147, 149, 323, and 304-PartI of the Indian Penal Code , setting the criminal law in motion and framing the foundation for the trial.”

5. In the present case, the prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined as many as thirteen (13) witnesses and also tendered several documents which were duly marked as exhibits on its behalf. Through these oral and documentary evidences, the prosecution sought to establish the charges levelled against the accused persons.

6. On the other hand, it is evident from the record that the defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of its case. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence, nor was any document produced to rebut or discredit the prosecution’s evidence. Thus, the defence case rests solely on cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the suggestions put forth during trial.

7. Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, has strenuously contended that the impugned judgment of conviction is vitiated by serious infirmities, inasmuch as it rests upon evidence suffering from material contradictions, omissions, and improvements, ther