The Calcutta High Court affirms that minor contradictions, inquest irregularities, or non-recovery of weapons do not automatically undermine convictions under Sections 302, 326 read with 34 IPC, and stands as binding authority for subordinate courts while following established precedents.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/320/2015 of Waser Sk @ Wacher Mayra Vs State of West Bengal |
| CNR | WBCHCA0273722015 |
| Date of Registration | 03-06-2015 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed (conviction of Waser Sk set aside; others’ convictions upheld in related CRAs) |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta (concurs) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Bench | Division Bench (Rajasekhar Mantha, J. & Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents regarding witness contradictions and inquest scope |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (Indian Penal Code; CrPC Section 174) |
| Questions of Law | Whether minor discrepancies among eye-witnesses, timing irregularities in FIR/inquest, non-recovery of weapons or dying declarations can invalidate convictions supported by injured-witness testimony and medical reports under Sections 302/326/34 IPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that minor, “normal” discrepancies in the evidence of multiple injured witnesses involved in a large melee do not outweigh their core consistencies; inquest reports are preliminary and cannot dictate investigative lines; medical opinions on stomach contents or missing weapons are not conclusive to discredit a well-corroborated prosecution case; and where parties have applied common intention to commit murder or grievous hurt, convictions under Sections 302 and 326 read with 34 IPC must be upheld. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217; Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1975) 4 SCC 153; Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023) SCC OnLine SC 35; Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam (2023) 19 SCC 672; Kalki v. State of Rajasthan (1981) 2 SCC 752; Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 4 SCC 511; State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad (1998) 9 SCC 49; Jagat Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2011) 2 SCC 234; Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 192; Indira Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2016) 12 SCC 76; Abdul Razak v. State of Karnataka (2015) 6 SCC 282; Munna Lal v. State of U.P. (2023) 18 SCC 661 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A boundary dispute escalated when accused ploughed into private farmland; summoned 20–30 co-villagers armed with agricultural weapons; attacked landowner’s family; one victim died from neck chop (Section 302 IPC), three others suffered grievous injuries (Section 326 IPC). |
| Citations | (1983) 3 SCC 217; (1975) 4 SCC 153; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 35; (2023) 19 SCC 672; (1981) 2 SCC 752; (1995) 4 SCC 511; (1998) 9 SCC 49; (2011) 2 SCC 234; (2016) 16 SCC 192; (2016) 12 SCC 76; (2015) 6 SCC 282; (2023) 18 SCC 661 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts interpreting disputes involving multiple injured witnesses and inquest reports |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts faced with minor discrepancies in witness evidence and investigation lapses |
| Distinguishes | Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 4 SCC 511 (inquest omissions not fatal where eyewitness evidence is strong) |
| Follows | Bharwada Bhoginbhai v. State of Gujarat; Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra; Kalki v. Rajasthan |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that minor timing discrepancies in FIR/inquest registration and post-mortem meal-timing estimates are “normal” and do not undermine convictions.
- Emphasises that an inquest report is preliminary and does not bind the investigating officer to every lead.
- Reiterates that the unimpeached core of injured-witness testimony carries high probative value, even with minor contradictions on details.
- Holds that non-recovery of common agricultural weapons or absence of dying declarations does not automatically entitle accused to acquittal.
- Clarifies that absence of weapon recovery or pistol recovery can raise doubt only if the rest of the evidence is weak; not fatal where medical and eyewitness evidence is overwhelming.
- Illustrates proper application of distinction between “normal” and “material” discrepancies (Kalki, Md. Jabbar Ali).
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Timing and Inquest Discrepancies
- Minor variations in recorded times of FIR and inquest are accepted as “normal” under Bharwada Bhoginbhai and Pedda Narayana.
- Inquest scope limited to cause of death; not binding for detailed assault narratives.
-
Reliability of Injured Witnesses
- Injured-eyewitness testimony is inherently reliable unless compelling reasons exist to discard it (Balu Sudam Khalde).
- Multiple injured witnesses consistently identified assailants and roles despite large melee.
-
Contradictions and Common Intention
- Differences over exactly who held the victim’s hands are “normal discrepancies” (Kalki).
- Evidence of exhortation (“cut their heads…”) and common action supports Section 34 IPC liability.
-
Medical Evidence and Weapon Recovery
- Medical report on grievous incised injuries corroborates eyewitness accounts.
- Absence of weapon recovery is not fatal when instruments are common agricultural tools.
-
Assessment of OMISSIONS
- Delay in witness statements due to police transfers is explained.
- Non-production of dying declaration and lack of injury reports for some witnesses do not fatally weaken the case.
-
Conclusion on Convictions
- Convictions under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 326 read with 34 IPC against most accused upheld; Waser Sk acquitted for lack of direct evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged timing inconsistencies in FIR, UD case, inquest report.
- Pointed to empty stomach and PM timing opinion to dispute occurrence timing.
- Highlighted discrepancies among eye-witnesses over roles in holding the victim.
- Noted non-recovery of weapons, absence of dying declaration, missing injury reports.
- Argued that genesis of incident was improper and that a free fight/ private defense scenario applied (Jagat Singh, Pankaj).
Respondent
- Emphasised overwhelming, consistent injured-witness testimony identifying assailants.
- Relied on medical evidence of homicidal, grievous injuries.
- Argued minor discrepancies are normal and do not vitiate core narrative.
- Cited precedents affirming that faulty investigation or missing evidence does not automatically acquit where evidence is unimpeachable.
Factual Background
Appellants ploughed across a disputed boundary “aile” on November 9, 2005, prompting landowner and family to confront them. Accused returned with 20–30 villagers armed with Ram Daos, tangis, sticks, and a pistol. Maynul Bere inflicted a fatal blow on the deceased’s nape (Section 302 IPC); three family members suffered grievous incised injuries (Section 326 IPC). FIR under Sections 147, 148, 326 IPC was registered at Nakashipara PS; inquest and post-mortem followed at Saktinagar Hospital.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder; applied to Maynul Bere and principal assailants.
- Section 326 IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons; applied to co-accused who inflicted serious injuries.
- Section 34 IPC: Common intention; used to connect each accused with the collective violent act.
- Section 174 CrPC: Inquest procedure; recognized as limited to cause and circumstances, not exhaustive assault details.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
None. Both judges concur in upholding convictions (except acquitting Waser Sk).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Minor discrepancies do not vitiate convictions when core eyewitness and medical evidence remain strong.
Citations
- Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 (par. 5)
- Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4 SCC 153 (pars. 11)
- Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 35 (pp. 26(c)–(d))
- Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, (2023) 19 SCC 672 (par. 7)
- Kalki v. State of Rajasthan, (1981) 2 SCC 752 (par. 8)
- Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 4 SCC 511 (par. 5)
- State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad, (1998) 9 SCC 49 (par. 8)
- Jagat Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2011) 2 SCC 234 (par. 14)
- Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 192
- Indira Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2016) 12 SCC 76 (pars. 6–7)
- Abdul Razak v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 6 SCC 282 (pars. 9–10)
- Munna Lal v. State of U.P., (2023) 18 SCC 661 (par. 28.2)