IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

GA 32 OF 1996 STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS PROBHAS KUMAR DAS For the Appellant/State : Ms. Faria Hossain, Adv.

Mr. Anand Kesari, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Dattatreya Dutta, Adv.

Last heard on : 13.11.2025 Judgement on : 11.12.2025 Uploaded on : 12.12.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This criminal appeal was filed with the leave to appeal on behalf of the State of West Bengal under Section 278(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from an order of acquittal dated 4th March, 1995, in respect of the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the Learned Additional Judge at Barasat District-24 Parganas North, for setting aside the said order of acquittal.

Prosecution case

2. The prosecution case was that on 22 March 1984 at about 7:30 or 7:45 PM while proceeding towards their residence, two accused persons, namely Prabhas Das a local resident and his companion Sameer threw acid to them, resulting serious acid burn injury. The two sisters on being injured raised hue and cry and the neighbouring people rushed to the place of occurrence, and removed both of them at the nearest Hospital. Where from one of the sister was released after first aid, but the other sister was admitted in the hospital for treatment. The prosecution case further discloses that Prabhash Kumar Das used to mix with one of the injured victim, and as exception was taken by her guardian, she refused to meet and then Prabhat threatened her with dire consequences and out of grudge, the accused persons threw acid on them. On the basis of such complaints, before the O/C Barasat P.S by the brother of the victim girls, Barasat Police Station case no. 54,dated March 22, 1984, under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code started and on completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed by the learned court on commitment ,under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the content of the charge was read over and explained to the accused person to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the trial commenced.

3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution adduced as many as 15 witnesses out of which P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant and P.W.2 and 3 are the victim injured girls and P.W.4, 5 and 6 are the local people who rushed to the spot and removed the girls to the hospital. P.W. 12 is the Mahajan who received the stitched blouse on that day. P.W. 9 and 10 are the seizure list witnesses ,P.W. 13 and P.W. 15 are the treating doctors and P.W. 14 is the I.O. The witness fully supported the prosecution case and the injured girls adduced evidence and their testimonies could not be shaken. The Learned Trial Court after assessing the evidences, and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties passed an order of conviction against the respondent No. 1 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of ₹3000/- . The learned Trial Court passed the order of acquittal so far the Respondent No. 2 is concerned. The said order of conviction was challenged and the learned appellate court set aside such order of conviction mostly on the ground of identification of the accused person as the torchlight was not available or seized. Being aggrieved, thereby the state has preferred this appeal.

Submission of the Prosecution/Appellant .

4. The Trial Court presumed that there was a torch in the possession of the victims that was used to identify the accused but that was not seized . The learned court did not consider that non-seizure of torch is not fatal to the question the P.W.2/victims ability to identify the accused. In this regard relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai vs Dinesh Dayabha