In a significant judgment reinforcing the principle of "benefit of doubt" in criminal jurisprudence, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a man in a case dating back to 2005. The Court ruled that criminal liability cannot be fixed based on vague, general, or "omnibus" allegations, especially when the prosecution's evidence is riddled with contradictions.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, while presiding over a criminal revision petition, emphasized that for a conviction to stand, the prosecution must provide specific details regarding the date, time, place, and exact manner of the assault. The Court noted that simply stating "all accused persons assaulted the victim" without attributing specific roles is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case originated nearly two decades ago at the Narkeldanga Police Station. According to the prosecution, the trouble began when three individuals entered a local shop late at night and demanded cigarettes. When the shopkeeper refused or a dispute arose, the men allegedly abused him, wrongfully restrained him, and physically assaulted him with "fists and blows," causing various injuries.

Following an investigation, charges were framed under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 114 (abettor present when offense is committed) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Initially, both the Trial Court and the subsequent Appellate Court found the accused guilty under Section 323 of the IPC, sentencing them to six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine. During the long pendency of the legal battle, two of the original convicts passed away, leaving the revision petition to be pursued only by the surviving petitioner, Prasanta Pakray (also known as Shibu).

The High Court’s decision to acquit the petitioner was based on several critical lapses in the prosecution's case:

1. Lack of Specific Roles (Omnibus Allegations)

The Court observed that the complainant (the shopkeeper) had leveled general allegations against all three men without specifying who did what. In legal terms, these are called "omnibus allegations." Justice Gupta noted that the law requires a specific "overt act" to be linked to an accused person to sustain a conviction for assault.

2. Contradictory Witness Statements

A major blow to the prosecution’s case was the inconsistency between the testimonies of the complainant and his son. Their versions differed significantly regarding the sequence of events and the circumstances of the assault. Furthermore, two independent witnesses—who were present at the scene—did not support the prosecution's story. Interestingly, the prosecution did not declare these witnesses "hostile," meaning their non-supportive testimony remained on the record as a challenge to the victim's version.

3. Uncertainty Over the Scene of Crime

The Court found it "troubling" that there was no clear consensus on where exactly the incident occurred. Different witnesses provided different addresses for the shop, leading the Court to conclude that the prosecution failed to firmly establish the "place of occurrence," which is a fundamental requirement in a criminal trial.

4. Medical Evidence Weaknesses

The medical records did not provide the "smoking gun" the prosecution hoped for. The examining doctor admitted during cross-examination that the injuries found on the victim could have resulted from a simple fall. Moreover, the names of the accused were not mentioned in the initial medical reports, further weakening the link between the petitioner and the alleged injuries.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that the lower courts had erred by overlooking these material contradictions. The judgment stated:

"The allegations leveled against the present petitioner are vague, non-specific, and omnibus... the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 323 of the IPC."

By extending the "benefit of doubt" to the petitioner, the High Court set aside the previous orders of conviction and sentence, officially acquitting the man after 19 years of legal proceedings.

This ruling serves as a vital reminder to the police and lower judiciary that "common intention" or "joint liability" cannot be assumed in the absence of clear, consistent evidence. For the common citizen, it reaffirms that the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution; if the story told by the state has holes, the accused is entitled to walk free.

Case Details:

Case Title: Sambhu Das @ Shambhu Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No: C.R.R. 539 of 2017
Court: Calcutta High Court
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta