Calcutta High Court affirms that minor contradictions, preliminary inquest reports and post-mortem meal-time estimations do not derail convictions; binding authority for handling injured-witness testimony and inquest scope
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | C.R.A. 320 of 2015 Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra v. State of West Bengal |
| CNR | WBCHCA0273722015 |
| Date of Registration | 03-06-2015 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA and HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Both Judges concurring |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for trial courts on handling discrepancies, inquest reports and post-mortem estimations |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents regarding minor witness discrepancies, scope of inquest under Section 174 CrPC, and non-conclusive nature of post-mortem meal-time opinion |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC Sections 302, 326, 34; CrPC Section 174) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that minor discrepancies in injured-witness testimony are natural in a large free-for-all assault and do not constitute material contradictions. An inquest report under Section 174 CrPC is preliminary and cannot dictate or limit the line of police investigation. Post-mortem estimates of time since last meal are expert opinion and not conclusive on exact time of death. Over-emphasis on such discrepancies or preliminary reports undermines the higher evidentiary value of injured-witness testimony, medical evidence, and the collective consistency of the prosecution case. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A boundary-line dispute escalated into a group assault on Haphijuddin Mallick and his family in November 2005. One son, Lalchand, was fatally struck on the nape of the neck with a Ramdao; three others sustained grievous injuries. FIR under Sections 147, 148 & 326 IPC led to Sessions Trial No. 132(5)/2007; convictions under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 326/34 IPC followed. On appeal, the High Court upheld convictions for all but one appellant, finding evidence of injured eyewitnesses, medical reports, and common-intention exhortations sufficient despite peripheral inconsistencies. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Distinguishes | Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) – inquest discrepancies not binding where eyewitness and medical evidence overwhelms preliminary report |
| Follows | Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983); Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975); State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981); Balu Sudam Khalde (2023) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Minor contradictions among injured-witness testimonies in a mass assault are “normal” and immaterial if core facts align.
- Inquest reports under Section 174 CrPC are preliminary observations and do not constrain the scope of police investigation.
- Post-mortem time-of-meal opinion cannot conclusively fix the time of death or displace consistent eyewitness accounts.
- Faulty or incomplete weapon recovery does not vitiate prosecution where medical evidence and witness testimony are unimpeachable.
- Appellant acquitted where there was no direct evidence of active participation or common intention despite mere presence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Preliminary Observations vs. Full Investigation
Inquest under Section 174 CrPC only identifies apparent cause; does not bind investigators (Pedda Narayana).
- Minor vs. Material Discrepancies
Discrepancies in who held the victim’s hands during the fatal blow are minor in a 20–30 person melee (Kalki).
- Value of Injured-Witness Testimony
Injured eyewitnesses reliably identify assailants; minor embellishments do not discard honest testimony (Balu Sudam).
- Medical Opinion on Time of Death
Post-mortem stomach-content inference is expert opinion, not conclusive; cannot override eyewitness time estimates.
- Benefit of Doubt Where Role Unproven
One accused, alleged to have brandished a pistol, acquitted due to absence of gunshot injury or weapon recovery.
- Overall Consistency and Common Intention
Multiple eyewitnesses and medical reports converge on the group assault, fatal blow by Ramdao, and exhortations to “cut heads,” establishing common intention under Section 34 IPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Timing discrepancies: FIR, inquest and hospital transfer timelines conflict.
- Inquest report names an outsider’s son, yet no investigation followed.
- Post-mortem meal-time finding suggests death before alleged assault.
- Witnesses gave divergent versions on who held the victim.
- Delay in recording statements and non-recovery of weapons vitiate case.
Respondent
- Minor contradictions natural in large-scale assault; not material.
- Inquest is preliminary; police not bound to investigate every suggestion.
- Medical and injured-witness evidence is overwhelming; post-mortem opinion non-conclusive.
- Faulty weapon recovery irrelevant given severity of injuries and consistent testimony.
- One appellant’s mere presence does not satisfy active participation; benefit of doubt applies.
Factual Background
A land-boundary dispute on 9 November 2005 led one accused to fetch 20–30 co-villagers armed with agricultural implements. They attacked Haphijuddin Mallick’s family, inflicted grievous wounds on three members and fatally struck his son Lalchand on the nape. FIR under Sections 147, 148, 326 IPC was registered. Sessions trial convicted multiple appellants under Sections 302/34 and 326/34 IPC. On appeal, the Calcutta High Court reviewed discrepancies, inquest scope, post-mortem timing and value of injured-witness evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder; requires intent or knowledge to cause death.
- Section 326 IPC: Grievous hurt by weapon; “voluntarily causing grievous hurt” with dangerous weapon.
- Section 34 IPC: Common intention; each participant equally liable.
- Section 174 CrPC: Inquest into unnatural deaths; preliminary inquiry for apparent cause, not full criminal investigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established principles on minor discrepancies, scope of inquest and post-mortem opinion.
Citations
- (1983) 3 SCC 217 (“Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat”)
- (1975) 4 SCC 153 (“Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh”)
- (1981) 2 SCC 752 (“State of Rajasthan v. Kalki”)
- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 35 (“Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra”)
- (1995) 4 SCC 511 (“Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab”)
- (2016) 16 SCC 192 (“Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan”)