14.01.2026 (SL-02) Nandita Court No.655 In the matter of : Tripal Chandra Das @ Khitish Das ….Appellant Mr. Subir Ganguly, Mr. Durga Prasad Dutta ….for the Appellant Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, Mr. Shantanu Talukdar ….for the State Heard On 14.01.2026 (Dictated in Court)

1. The impugned judgment and order dated

21.06.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court is assailed in this appeal.

2. By passing the impugned judgment this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years subject to set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C..

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order, the present appeal is preferred at the instance of the appellant.

4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows::-

“A written complaint was lodged by the de-facto complainant before the concerned police station, interalia, stating that his father, Bibekanand Sarkar, had met with an unnatural death in circumstances alleged to have occurred on 22.08.1994. According to the complaint, on the said date, the victim was engaged in grazing his cattle near the bank of the river Kulick, when an altercation ensued between him and the accused, Tripal Das. The dispute is said to have arisen over the alleged damage caused by one of the victim’s cattle to a banana plant, which had been found tied to a tree by the accused. The complainant further alleged that during the course of this altercation, the accused inflicted a blow on the chest of the victim, which caused him to lose consciousness and ultimately resulted in his death. Acting upon this complaint, the police registered a case at Raiganj Police Station, Uttar Dinajpur, being Case No. 269 of 1994, dated 22.08.1994, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby setting the machinery of criminal law in motion against the accused. The police conducted a detailed investigation into the matter and, upon completion, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused under Section 304 of the I.P.C. implicating him in the alleged offence.”

5. The charge was framed by the Trial Court against the accused under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. which was read over explained to the accused which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the present case, a total of nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, and several documents were exhibited in support of the prosecution’s case. The oral testimony of these witnesses, coupled with the documentary evidence, was relied upon by the prosecution to establish the allegations against the accused. On the other hand, 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, and no material was placed before the Court to challenge the veracity or credibility of the prosecution’s claims. The defence, therefore, chose to rely entirely on the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses and the submissions advanced through learned counsel, without introducing any independent evidence to substantiate its contentions.

7. As a result, the entirety of the evidence on record is that presented by the prosecution, with the defence case being predicated solely upon highlighting contradictions, omissions, and weaknesses in the prosecution’s evidence. This procedural posture underscores that the determination of the case rests entirely on the credibility, reliability, and sufficiency of the evidence led by the prosecution, as no countervailing material or testimony has been adduced by the accused to refute or challenge the allegations.

8. Mr. Subir Ganguly, learned Advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is legally unsustainable and, in its present form, cannot be upheld under the eye of law. It has been contended that the judgment suffers from serious infirmities, p