The acquittal of the respondents was upheld due to insufficient evidence identifying them as assailants, reaffirming the strong presumption of innocence in cases of acquittal.

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And T he Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi CRA 92 of 2020 Anil Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Aniruddha Singh, Adv. Mr. Avishek Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Hemanda Kr. Das, Adv. Mr. Nepesh Majhi, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. S.S. Roy, Adv. Nos. 2 to 8 : Mr. Santanu Banaerjee, Adv. : Mr. Pronojit Roy, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ld. Sr. Adv. No. 9 Mr. Bihash Kr. Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Sourav Kr. Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Manaswita Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Niladri Chakraborty, Adv. For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. PP Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Adv. Hearing Concluded on : January 10, 2023 Judgement on : January 18, 2023 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. The appeal was directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated November 28, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2 Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 44/ September, 2018 arising out of Case No. 77 of 2018.

2. By the impugned judgement and order the respondents Nos 2 to 9 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 325 /304/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses at the trial. Out of the 5 witnesses, 2 were injured eyewitnesses. He submitted that, some persons received injuries in the incident and one person died.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that, PWs 1, 2 and 5 saw the incident of assault on the victims. According to him, the prosecution witnesses established beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 in the crime.

5. Referring to the Post Mortem Report, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that, such Post Mortem Report was marked as an Exhibit without any objection on the part of the respondent Nos. 2 to 9. The Post Mortem Report established that the person concerned suffered injuries. The injuries noted were the cause of death. PWs 1 and 2 identified the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 as the persons involved in the 3 assault on such victim. The respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are more than 5 in number. Therefore, the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In support of such contention, he relied upon 1993 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 356 ( Sarman And Others Vs. State of M.P. .

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that, non-examination of the post mortem doctor was not fatal to the case of the prosecution. He submitted that, the genuineness and authenticity of the Post Mortem Report was proved and should be treated as valid evidence under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code . The Post Mortem Report was tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit. The respondent Nos. 2 to 9 did not object to the tender of the Post Mortem Report in evidence.

7. Since the Post Mortem Report established that, the victim died out of the injuries suffered, and since the prosecution witnesses established that the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 were involved in the assault, according to him, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime of culpable homicide not amounting to murder by the respondent Nos. 2 to 9. 4

8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that, the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are to be held guilty under Section 394 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

9. Learned advocate appearing for the State submitted that, the State did not prefer any appeal against the impugned judgement and order of acquittal.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 submitted that, the appeal was directed against an order of acquittal. A