'After 20 Yrs, Sending Accused To Jail Serves No Purpose': Calcutta High Court Grants Probation In Assault Case
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for voluntarily causing hurt in a 2005 assault case but extended the benefit of probation in view of the passage of time, observing that after two decades and absence of criminal antecedents, sending the accused to jail would serve little purpose. The Court modified the sentence and directed payment of bonds and compensation instead...
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for voluntarily causing hurt in a 2005 assault case but extended the benefit of probation in view of the passage of time, observing that after two decades and absence of criminal antecedents, sending the accused to jail would serve little purpose. The Court modified the sentence and directed payment of bonds and compensation instead of imprisonment.
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), while dismissing a criminal revision petition, sustained the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts convicting the petitioner under Section 323 of the IPC, but invoked Section 360 of the CrPC to release him on probation.
The case arose from a complaint filed by the victim alleging that he was assaulted by the petitioner on February 22, 2005 in front of the A.D.S.R. Office at Tamluk. After obtaining permission under Section 155 CrPC, police investigated and submitted an NCR. The trial court convicted the petitioner and initially sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment, which the appellate court later reduced to six months.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the medical reports were fabricated, that independent witnesses were not examined despite the incident occurring in a public place, and that there were discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence. It was also contended that the conviction was based on partisan testimony.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court noted that both courts below had concurrently found the prosecution evidence consistent and reliable. It reiterated the settled principle that evidence of related or interested witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground and must be scrutinised with care.
The Bench observed that the victim's testimony was corroborated by medical evidence. Doctors who examined the complainant recorded multiple abrasions and neck pain on the same day of the incident. The injury report reflected “abrasion over left elbow, tiny abrasion over face, abrasion over right ring finger,” along with stiffness and pain, supporting the allegation of physical assault.
The Court held that minor discrepancies in timing or recording of the complaint did not demolish the prosecution case when ocular evidence was backed by medical proof. It further found that the assault was voluntary within the meaning of Section 39 IPC, and the accused had failed to adduce any defence evidence during his examination under Section 313 CrPC.
Finding no perversity or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings, Justice Das declined to interfere with the conviction.
However, the Court took note that the incident occurred nearly 20 years ago and that the revision had been pending since 2018. Considering the relatively short sentence and the absence of further criminal antecedents, it held that the benefit of probation ought to be granted.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction, the Court modified the sentence and directed the petitioner to execute a bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties of ₹5,000 each, maintain peace and good behaviour for six months, and pay ₹30,000 as compensation to the victim. In default, he would undergo one month's imprisonment.
The criminal revision was thus dismissed with modification of sentence.
Case: Mahadeb Das @ Manadev Das v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 1757 of 2018