IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

CRA 567 Of 2010

Tushar Das

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee,

Mr. Manas Das,

Mr. Arindam Poali,

Ms. Suchismita Chakroborty.

For the State : Ms. Z.N. Khan,

Mr. Sharequl Haque.

Hearing concluded on : 26.06.2025 Delivered on : 21.08.2025

Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 30.07.2010 and 31.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amta, Howrah in connection

with Sessions Trial No. 206/2009 is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court the present appellant has preferred this instant appeal.

4. The instant case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Raj Kr. Pramanick of Village Sibanipur, under P.S. U.N. Pur, Howrah stating interalia that on 02.07.2008 in the evening at 7:00/7:30 pm a dispute was cropped up regarding passing of rain water from the house of the defacto complainant in between accused Tushar Das, Naba Kr. Das and Tarun Das and his father. All on a sudden the three accused persons assaulted the father of the complainant and this appellant Tushar Das gave blow on the head of his father with a wooden bar. As a result the victim sustained facture injury on his head and the accused person fled away from the spot keeping the victim lying on the ground floor with bleeding injury. Thereafter the victim was admitted at U.N. Pur State General Hospital wherefrom he was taken to Medical College and Hospital at Kolkata. Over the complaint the instant case was started. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 325/304/34 IPC. 5. Charge was framed by the learned Trial Court against three other accused persons including this appellant under Section 325/304/34 IPC. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused persons which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In this case 13 witnesses were examined by the side of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibits. Netiher any oral nor any documentary evidences was adduced on behalf of the defense.

7. Mr. Mriyunjoy Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the appellant said that there are apparent omissions and contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses and as such the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in law. It is further said by the learned Advocate that the evidence of PW1 suffers from inherent infirmities and he is a post occurrence witness and he found his father lying in pool of blood but at the time of examination in chief he narrated the incident as a witness to the alleged incident. Moreover, the said witness was not present at the time of seizure of the weapon of assault.

8. Learned Advocate further assailed that the scribe of the written complaint (PW2) admitted in his evidence that there is no endorsement on the written complaint that it was written according to the instruction of the defacto complainant (PW1) and was read over and explained to him. The attention of this Court is drawn to the evidence of PW4 who is also a post-occurrence witness and admitted that PW1/defacto complainant had arrived at the place of occurrence after happening of the incident. It is further said by the learned Advocate that PW6 and PW7 who are the witnesses to the seizure categorically admitted that they did not sign on the alleged weapon of assault and put their signatures on the seizure list in the p