Smt. Pramila Singh vs State Of West Bengal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5339 Cal

AD. 21.

October 4, 2021.

MNS.

C.R.A. No. 121 of 2019

(Via Video Conference)

Smt. Pramila Singh Vs.

State of West Bengal

Mr. Diptendu Mandal

...Amicus Curiae

Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala, Mr. Pratick Bose

...for the State.

The efforts of the learned Amicus Curiae in assisting the Court

pro bono is much appreciated.

It is contended by the learned Amicus Curiae that, although the

complaint alleged against the appellant stated categorically that the

appellant sought to hit the eyes and throat of the victim on two

different occasions, as many as three doctors gave evidence, from

which it is at best available that there were marks of incision on the

cheek and the forehead of the victim. Moreover, as the Sessions

Court itself noted as well, the Doctors were not specific as to the

nature of the wound and/or the nature of the weapon, which could had

inflicted such hurt.

Hence, it is argued by the learned Amicus Curiae that there is

patent discrepancy between the complaint and the evidence on

record.

Secondly, it is submitted that neither the alleged weapon of

offence nor any wearing apparel, of either the victim or the appellant,

was recovered.

Thirdly, the 'intention' on the part of the Appellant, which is a

necessary ingredient of Section 307, 326, as well as the parent

Section, that is, Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, is not

corroborated at all by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is

only the statement of the victim where it was iterated that the

appellant had an intention to inflict grievous hurt on the victim.

It is further contended that the evidence of the alleged

neighbours was mere hearsay.

Learned counsel appearing for the State contends that the

nature of the wounds inflicted on the victim, as well as the attending

circumstances, as corroborated by cogent evidence, were sufficient to

convict the appellant under Section 307 and Section 326 of the Indian

Penal Code.

Upon hearing the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel

for the State, it is evident that the allegations as levelled against the

appellant were, by no means, proved by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt, which is a cardinal pre-requisite in criminal cases

for convicting a person.

As rightly argued by the learned Amicus Curiae, the nature of

injuries as alleged in the complaint, that is, on the eyes and throat of

the victim, is patently different from the evidence of the Doctors, which

indicates that the victim was hit at the side of his forehead and cheek.

Not only was the weapon of the offence not recovered from the

spot, but there is also nothing on record to clinch beyond reasonable

doubt the intention on the part of the appellant to inflict a grievous hurt

on the alleged victim.

The evidences of the alleged neighbours of the victim are all

hearsay, as evident from the statements made by the said witnesses

themselves.

Moreover, the depositions of the Doctors do not specify the

exact nature and location of the wounds or the type of weapon which

could have inflicted the wounds-in-question.

Above all else, the learned Amicus Curiae is justified in

submitting that there is no corroboration between the statements

made in the complaint as regards the exact parts of the victim's face,

where the attempts to inflict grievous hurt took place, and the

evidence of the Doctors, which indicated different parts of the face

than the complaint.

In view of the above considerations, it is clearly seen that the

Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration the above gross

discrepancies in the prosecution case. There are gaping, unexplained

gaps in the prosecution evidence. Moreover, the sentence awarded is

not commensurate with the offence under Section 326 of the Indian

Penal Code, which entails a minimum sentence of ten years of

imprisonment, whereas merely three years was awarded against the

appellant, although he was convicted also under Section 326 of the

IPC.

Merely on the basis of conjecture and preponderance of

probabilities, the appellant ought not to have been convicted under

Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, the

impugned judgment and order are vitiated by errors of law, as well as

facts.

Accordingly, C. R. A. No. 121 of 2019 is allowed, thereby

setting aside the judgment and order of conviction dated January 25,

2019 and January 28, 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Third Court at Hooghly, in Sessions Trial No. 16(04)/2017, arising out

of Sessions Case No. 39/2017, and the consequential sentence.

The appellant is hereby acquitted from the charges framed

against her and is discharged from all conditions and/or bonds, if any,

furnished by the appellant with regard to any bail application at any

point of time with regard to the offences-in-question.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)