Villager Attacked For Trespassing On Property, Cutting Bamboo: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused In 35-Yr-Old Case
Holding that mere presence during a village scuffle cannot sustain a conviction for grievous hurt when the prosecution fails to clearly establish the specific overt act of the accused, the Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment for allegedly attacking a co-villager with a sharp weapon during a land dispute. Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay observed that the prosecution evidence suffered from material contradictions and absence of corroboration, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
The Court was dealing with a criminal revision filed by Baneshwar Mahato challenging an appellate order which had acquitted eight co-accused but upheld his conviction under Sections 326 and 148 of the IPC. The trial court had sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and fine, with part of the amount directed as compensation to the injured complainant.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred in August 1990 when nine accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the complainant's 'Khamar Bari', and began cutting bamboo. On protest, the petitioner allegedly struck the complainant with a 'farsa', nearly severing his thumb, resulting in amputation. A case and a counter-case were registered stemming from the same occurrence.
During trial, family members of the complainant claimed to be eyewitnesses and attributed the blow to the petitioner. However, the defence highlighted a long-standing land dispute, the existence of a counter-case, and injuries suffered by the accused side as well. Medical and defence witnesses produced injury reports showing that co-accused persons had sustained sharp-cut injuries, suggesting a mutual fight rather than a one-sided assault.
Reappreciating the evidence, the High Court found several inconsistencies. It noted that the injured complainant did not specifically name the petitioner as the assailant while narrating the history of assault to the doctor. The Investigating Officer admitted that he had not examined the victim prior to filing the charge-sheet. The Court also observed that key allegations implicating the petitioner surfaced for the first time during trial and were not stated earlier during investigation. Further, the medical evidence indicated that such injuries could also occur while resisting a blow.
The Court held that amid a sudden group clash and commotion, it was doubtful whether the victim could accurately identify the individual who caused the injury. In the absence of clear, cogent and consistent evidence directly connecting the petitioner to the grievous hurt, the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Extending the benefit of doubt, the Court allowed the revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged the petitioner from liability.
Case: Baneshwar Mahato -Vs- Bishnupada Mahato & Anr.
Case No: C.R.R. 1521 of 2000