Reaffirming that normal discrepancies, inquest limitations, and minor investigative omissions do not undermine murder and grievous‐hurt convictions; acquitting those not clearly implicated
Calcutta High Court answers “No,” upholding convictions under Sections 302/326 IPC read with Section 34, acquitting one accused for lack of evidence. The judgment affirms precedents on inquest scope, normal vs material discrepancies, and injured‐witness reliability. Binding on subordinate courts; persuasive for other High Courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/266/2015 of AFTAB SK @ ATAB SK & ORS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL |
| CNR | WBCHCA0249992015 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED (CRA 283/2015 & CRA 266/2015) |
| Judgment Author | Justice Rajasekhar Mantha |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta (concurs) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Two-Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on inquest scope, eyewitness discrepancies, injured‐witness evidence |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (IPC Sections 302, 326, 34) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that (1) inquest reports under Section 174 CrPC are preliminary and do not bind subsequent investigation; (2) minor discrepancies in timing or identification are natural in chaotic assaults and do not vitiate convictions when supported by injured‐witness and medical evidence; (3) a post‐mortem estimate of last meal time is advisory and cannot override ocular testimony on occurrence timing; (4) where multiple injured eyewitnesses give consistent testimony of roles, the prosecution case is unimpeachable despite some contradictions; and (5) an accused must be acquitted if no clear evidence links them to the crime, applying the benefit‐of‐doubt principle. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A land‐boundary dispute led to an altercation on 9 November 2005 at a “Banskata” field. Accused returned with 20–30 persons armed with agricultural weapons and attacked a family. The victim, Lalchand, died from multiple deep cuts inflicted by a Ramdao; other family members sustained grievous injuries. FIR was lodged, investigation involved two I.O.s, inquest and post‐mortem were conducted. Trial Court convicted most accused under Sections 302/326 read with 34 IPC; appeals followed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering inquest scope, normal‐discrepancy test, injured‐witness reliability |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) regarding inquest inconsistency |
| Follows | Bharwada Bhoginbhai (timing discrepancies); Pedda Narayana (inquest limits); State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (normal vs material discrepancies) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that an inquest report under Section 174 CrPC is preliminary and does not compel investigators to pursue every lead mentioned therein.
- Reaffirms that timing discrepancies among eyewitnesses in chaotic attacks are “normal” and not fatal to prosecution if core evidence is consistent.
- Holds that post‐mortem estimates of last meal times are advisory, not conclusive, on occurrence timing.
- Emphasises that injured‐witness testimony has high evidentiary value; minor contradictions do not require acquittal.
- Applies the benefit‐of‐doubt rule to acquit an accused against whom no clear role was established.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Timing Discrepancies: Relied on Bharwada Bhoginbhai—exact incident timings are estimates; minor variations are expected.
- Inquest Scope: Citing Pedda Narayana, inquest under Section 174 CrPC only identifies suspicious death; it does not mandate lines of inquiry.
- Medical Evidence: PM estimate of last meal is opinion, not fact; cannot override consistent eye‐witness accounts.
- Eyewitness Discrepancies: Following Kalki, normal discrepancies in a mêlée do not vitiate evidence; material discrepancies alone matter.
- Hostile and Contradictory Witnesses: While some witnesses gave opposing accounts or were declared hostile, the core injured‐witness testimony was unshaken.
- Benefit of Doubt: Where evidence against an accused is absent or non-specific (no recovery of weapon, no clear role), acquittal is required.
- Application: Convicted all clearly implicated under Sections 302/326 read with 34 IPC; acquitted one accused (Waser Sk.) for lack of evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Highlighted timing contradictions between FIR, inquest, and hospital records.
- Argued inquest witnesses named an uninvolved individual (son of “Tajer Bere”)—no investigation followed.
- Relied on PM stomach‐food evidence to dispute 9 am occurrence.
- Pointed to contradictory genesis (PW 6 and PW 13) to challenge “common intention.”
- Noted non-recovery of weapons, missing dying declaration, and skipped medical facilities.
- Sought acquittal or reduction of charges (free fight/private defence argument).
Respondent
- Emphasised overwhelming consistency in injured-witness testimony (PWs 2, 3, 4).
- Relied on medical reports corroborating injuries and cause of death.
- Argued minor discrepancies are natural and not material.
- Pointed to para-military exhortation (“cut their heads”) showing mens rea.
- Urged that faulty investigation and inquest omissions are inconsequential in light of unimpeachable evidence.
Factual Background
On 9 November 2005, a land‐boundary dispute in a Nadia district field escalated when accused ploughed into another’s land. After an initial assault, they returned with 20–30 armed villagers wielding Ramdao, Tangi, and sticks. They killed Lalchand on the spot with a blow to the nape and inflicted grievous injuries on his father and brothers. A complaint was filed, police registered FIR No. 265/2005, conducted inquest and post‐mortem. At trial, the majority were convicted under IPC Sections 302, 326 read with 34; one accused was acquitted on appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention): elements satisfied by coordinated assault to kill.
- Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) read with Section 34: proven by severe cuts requiring hospitalisation.
- Section 174 CrPC (inquest): inquest report is preliminary, not binding on investigation.
- Dying-declaration principles: PW 2 recovered and deposed, diminishing evidentiary weight of earlier statement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta concurred fully with the reasoning and conclusions of Justice Mantha; no separate or dissenting view was expressed.
Procedural Innovations
- No new procedural rules or guidelines were issued.
- Reaffirms existing practice that inquest findings do not fetter police investigations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – existing Supreme Court precedents on discrepancies and inquest scope were affirmed.
Citations
As relied upon in the judgment; see “Judgments Relied Upon” above.