Conviction Under Sections 307/324/34 IPC Overturned Due to Inconsistent Witness Testimonies and Lack of Reliable Evidence
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of Naba Kumar Koley and co-accused Gunadhar Koley under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment was delivered by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, who found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case originated from a complaint filed on June 18, 2005, by Shibshankar Koley, alleging that his brothers, Naba Kumar and Gunadhar, attacked another brother, Balai Koley, with the intent to kill, leading to severe injuries. The trial court had convicted Naba Kumar and Gunadhar based on these allegations.
However, during the appeal, the High Court meticulously examined the evidence and found glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including that of the injured person, Balai Koley. The court noted that Balai's testimony did not meet the criteria of a "sterling witness" as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. The State (NCT) of Delhi. The inconsistencies included discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, the role of the accused, and the sequence of events.
Further complicating the prosecution's case were significant lapses in the investigation. The investigating officer failed to seize blood-stained earth or send seized articles for forensic examination, and the place of seizure was not mentioned in the seizure list. These lapses contributed to the lack of credible evidence against the accused.
Medical evidence also contradicted the prosecution's claims. While Balai Koley alleged being attacked with a sharp weapon, the medical report suggested the injuries could have resulted from a fall. The court emphasized that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused, as the prosecution's evidence did not conclusively link the injuries to an assault by Naba Kumar and Gunadhar.
The court concluded that the prosecution's case was fraught with reasonable doubts, leading to the acquittal of both accused. The judgment underscores the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in securing convictions and highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of the accused against wrongful convictions.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Sections 307/324/34 IPC set aside due to lack of reliable evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, including that of the injured person, whose testimony failed to meet the standard of a "sterling witness" as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 307, 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Naba Kumar Koley v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2880070
