Evidence of Injured Witnesses Overcomes Minor Discrepancies and Investigative Lapses in S.302 IPC Conviction: Calcutta High Court - 2025-10-12

Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Injured Witness Testimony, Acquits One

Kolkata, West Bengal – The Calcutta High Court, in a significant judgment, upheld the murder and grievous hurt convictions of several individuals involved in a violent 2005 land dispute, emphasizing that the testimony of injured eyewitnesses holds immense evidentiary value that minor discrepancies or investigative lapses cannot easily overturn.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed the appeals of most convicts but acquitted one accused, Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra, giving him the benefit of the doubt due to insufficient evidence.

Background of the Case

The case stems from a brutal incident on November 9, 2005, over a boundary dispute in an agricultural field in Nadia district. An initial altercation between Haphijuddin Mallick (PW 4) and Tayeb Ali Sk. over ploughing a land boundary ('aile') escalated dramatically. Tayeb Ali, along with an associate, returned with a mob of 20-30 people from a nearby village, armed with agricultural tools like Ramdaos (a curved cutting instrument) and sticks.

The mob attacked Haphijuddin and his sons—Lalchand, Burhan, and Sabdullah—who were working in the field. Lalchand was fatally struck on the neck with a Ramdao by the accused Maynul Bere, while his hands were allegedly held by others. Burhan and Sabdullah sustained grievous, life-threatening injuries but survived after prolonged hospitalization.

The Trial Court in Krishnanagar convicted several accused under Sections 302 (Murder) and 326 (Grievous hurt) read with Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code in 2015, leading to the present appeals.

Appellants' Arguments vs. Court's Analysis

The defense lawyers, led by Senior Advocates Mr. Y.Z. Dastoor and Mr. Sudipto Moitra, mounted a multi-pronged challenge, highlighting several perceived flaws in the prosecution's case:

• Discrepancies in Witness Accounts: The defense pointed out inconsistencies among witnesses regarding who held the deceased's hands during the fatal assault.
• Contradictory Genesis: It was argued that the prosecution's narrative about the start of the fight was unreliable, with some witnesses (PW 6 and PW 13) suggesting Haphijuddin's family were the initial aggressors.
• Investigative Lapses: Key failures were cited, including the non-recovery of murder weapons, conflicting information in the inquest report, and delayed recording of witness statements.
• Medical Evidence: An attempt was made to challenge the time of death based on the post-mortem finding that the deceased's stomach was empty.

The High Court meticulously analyzed these arguments but found them insufficient to dismantle the core of the prosecution's case, which rested on the powerful testimony of the injured victims.

Key Legal Principles Applied

The Bench relied on established legal precedents to address the defense's contentions.

• Primacy of Injured Witnesses: Citing Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra , the Court reaffirmed that "the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly." The testimonies of the injured brothers, Burhan (PW 2) and Sabdullah (PW 3), and their father Haphijuddin (PW 4), were found to be unimpeachable regarding the fatal assault.

• Distinguishing Material vs. Normal Discrepancies: On the issue of conflicting witness statements, the Court referenced State of Rajasthan v. Kalki . It concluded that in a chaotic melee involving 20-30 attackers, minor variations in testimony are "normal discrepancies" arising from shock and horror, and not material contradictions that would prove fatal to the case. The judgment noted:

  "...in the melee that took place between the accused persons... it is not impossible for different versions between several witnesses... In fact, if each of the prosecution witnesses had given the same evidence, it could have been suspected as parrot-like evidence."

• Faulty Investigation Not a Shield for Accused: The Court held that while there were omissions, such as the non-recovery of weapons, a faulty investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal when the crime is otherwise proven by credible evidence.

The Court's Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established its case against most of the appellants.

• Conviction for Murder (S. 302/34 IPC): The conviction of Maynul Bere (who delivered the fatal blow) and others including Moijuddin, Faijuddin, and Latif (who restrained the deceased) was upheld. Their actions demonstrated a clear common intention to kill.
• Conviction for Grievous Hurt (S. 326/34 IPC): The conviction of those who assaulted the surviving victims and those who incited the mob (like Atab Sk.) was also confirmed.
• Acquittal of Waser Sk.: Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra was acquitted of all charges. While witnesses claimed he held a pistol to the victim, the Court noted the absence of any gunshot wounds or recovery of a firearm. Finding the evidence against him unclear, the bench granted him the benefit of doubt.

The appeals CRA 283 of 2015 and CRA 266 of 2015 were dismissed, while CRA 320 of 2015 (filed by Waser Sk.) was allowed. The convicted persons who are out on bail were directed to surrender immediately to serve the remainder of their sentences.