In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not substitute its view unless the trial court's decision is perverse or unreasonable. Criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion, regardless of gravity, cannot substitute for legal evidence where contradictions exist.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.04.2002 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in connection with Sessions Trial No.IV of September, 2001, arising out of Sessions Case No. 46 of July, 2001 under Sections 148, 326/34, 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code thereby acquitting the respondents.

2. The prosecution case precisely stated on 15.04.1999 at about 10:45 hours one Sanatan Ghosh, Son of Susanta Ghosh of Ghoshpara, Shyamnagar under Krishnaganj P.S. filed a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Krishnaganj P.S. that on the night of 14.04.1999 at about 12:30 a.m., the complainant along with his brother Gostha Ghosh ghosh and his father Susanta Ghosh were irrigating their Jute field situated on the southern side of their village. Suddenly, the respondents, who were the residents of the village, being armed with sharp cutting weapons, attacked them and chopped at random. However, the de facto complainant managed to flee but his brother and his father sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, in the night they were taken to Krishnaganj hospital.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Krishnaganj P.S. Case No.63/99 dated 15.04.99 under Sections 147/148/149/324/326 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated for investigation and subsequently, the victim Gosto Ghosh died and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was added and police submitted charge-sheet under Section 147/148/149/324/326/304 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Charged was framed against the respondents under Sections 326/34, 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. In order to prove it’s the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

6. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/State submitted as follows:-

i. “PW-1, the brother of the deceased was taking rest at a nearby field when he heard the hue and cry of his brother Gostho Ghosh (since deceased) and PW-9 (injured eye witness). On hearing such hue and cry he reached the spot and with the help of a torch light he saw the acquitted respondents fleeing away and found out Gostho Ghosh with chop and stab injuries lying on the ground. So even if PW-1 was not an eye witness to the assault, but his testimony that the respondents were fleeing away from the spot and the deceased has suffered grievous injuries pin points to a lone conclusion that the respondents inflicted the said injuries upon the deceased.

In the F.I.R., lodged by PW-1, he had vividly described the manner in which the respondents assaulted his brother and father being the deceased and PW-9.

ii. PW-2, another brother of the deceased though was not present at the place of occurrence but when he reached the same, deceased Gostho Ghosh clearly named all the six respondents as the assailants and the same can be treated as an oral dying declaration.

In the similar manner this witness has stated that his father, i.e.

PW-9 had also described to him the manner in which both of them were assaulted by the respondents.

iii. PW-3, the mother of the deceased was admittedly not an eye witness but she later on went to the place of occurrence when deceased Gostho Ghosh had explicitly described the incident of assault upon himself and PW-9.

iv. PW-5 and PW-6 being local witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and they have heard that the dacoits have assaulted the deceased.

v. The most clinching evidence comes from the deposition of the PW-9, the father of the deceased and i