Vague Allegations & Contradictory Testimony Cannot Sustain Conviction: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man In 2005 Assault Case

The Calcutta High Court has held that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations without any specific role attributed to the accused, especially where independent witnesses do not support the prosecution and material contradictions exist regarding the manner and place of occurrence.

Allowing a criminal revision petition, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court which had convicted a man under Section 323 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), observing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt or prove any common intention.

The Court emphasised that “courts require specific details regarding date, time, place, manner of assault and evidence of injury for conviction,” and that general allegations that “all accused assaulted” the victim are insufficient in law.

Background

The case arose out of Narkeldanga Police Station Case No. 451 of 2005, registered on the complaint of a shopkeeper who alleged that three persons came to his shop at night, demanded cigarettes, abused him, wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him with fists and blows, causing injuries.

After investigation, charges were filed under Sections 341/323/114 IPC. The Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to six months' simple imprisonment with fine. The conviction was affirmed in appeal.

During the pendency of the revision, two of the convicts died, and the proceedings abated against them. The revision survived only with respect to Prasanta Pakray @ Shibu.

Court's Findings

Upon examining the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution case suffered from serious inconsistencies.

The complainant (PW1) made only general allegations that all the accused assaulted him and did not assign any specific overt act to the surviving petitioner. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was not even acquainted with the petitioner earlier, raising doubt as to how his name was specifically mentioned in the complaint.

The Court also noted contradictions between the testimonies of the complainant and his son (PW5) regarding how the incident occurred. Their versions differed on the sequence of events and the circumstances leading to the assault.

Further, two independent witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) did not support the prosecution case, and yet they were not declared hostile.

There was also uncertainty regarding the exact place of occurrence, with witnesses giving different addresses of the shop. The Court observed that failure to firmly establish the scene of the incident undermined the prosecution's narrative.

The medical evidence too did not conclusively support the prosecution. The doctor admitted that the injuries could have resulted from a fall, and the names of the accused were not reflected in the medical records.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove either a specific role of the petitioner or the existence of common intention, which was essential to fasten joint liability.

The Court observed: “The allegations levelled against the present petitioner are vague, non-specific and omnibus, and do not specify a role attributed to him so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 323 of the IPC.”

Holding that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court erred in convicting the petitioner, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted him.

Case Title: Sambhu Das @ Shambhu Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No.: C.R.R. 539 of 2017

Click here to read order