The Division Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jiten Barman Vs The State of West Bengal held that suspicion, howsoever high, cannot take the place of proof of guilt.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that it was alleged by the Prosecution that the Victims began shouting at night. When the Complainant's parents turned on the light they saw that Victim’s leg, belly, and hand had all been severely burned, along with another Victim’s face and breast. The aroma of carbolic acid filled the entire space and choked it. Both the Victims were sent to the hospital for treatment right away.
Additionally, it was alleged that when travelling to school, the Accused used to tease the Victim in numerous ways. She used to receive marriage proposals from the Accused. Since the Victim opposed the proposal of the Accused, he threatened to ruin her life and face. As soon as the Victim told her parents about the occurrence, they forbade her from going to school or driving, and they quickly set up her marriage. The Complainant was adamant that after learning of this truth, the Accused had ruined the lives of her sister and daughter (Victims) by throwing acid. The Complainant filed a written complaint against the Appellant and his companion Gajen Jana and the case was registered under Section 450/326A/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was contended that the Victims only suspected the Appellant of committing the crime. The Appellant wished to marry her because he loved her. None of the witnesses described how the Appellant got inside the house where the incident occurred. There were no eyewitnesses because the case is entirely supported by circumstantial evidence.
It was further submitted that strong suspicion by the prosecution case is not sufficient to hold the Appellants guilty of the offences alleged.
Contentions of the State:
It was contended that the act of pouring acid at the Victims as they slept inside the house had a very specific purpose. Before the occurrence, the Appellant had threatened to disfigure her in such a way that no man in the world would want to marry her and that everyone would be afraid to look at her face if she did not agree to marry him. As a result, when they learned that Victim’s Parents had planned her wedding and that the wedding date was set, they committed the crime.
Observations of the Court:
It was opined that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused.
It was noted that Victim girls could not state who threw acid on their persons at night in their house while sleeping. None of the family members, who were very much present in the house, neighbours, or persons of the surrounding saw the Appellant committing the offence.
The High Court expounded that based on suspicious circumstances, the Appellant cannot be said to be guilty.
The decision of the Court:
The Bench held that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and hence, was acquitted.
Case Title: Jiten Barman Vs The State of West Bengal
Case no: C.R.A. 561 of 2015
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Amitabha Karmakar, Adv.
Advocate for the State: Mr. Parthapratim Das, Adv. Mrs. Manasi Roy, Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :