Petitioner Acquitted as Inconsistencies and Lack of Corroborative Evidence Weigh in His Favor
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, has acquitted Baneshwar Mahato, the petitioner in a criminal revision case, granting him the benefit of the doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and insufficient corroborative evidence. The judgment comes in connection with a land dispute involving grievous injury allegations where the petitioner was previously convicted.
The case, originating from an incident dated August 8, 1990, involved a scuffle between Baneshwar Mahato and Bishnupada Mahato, among others, over a land dispute in Purulia. The petitioner and other accused were alleged to have trespassed and assaulted Bishnupada Mahato with a sharp weapon, causing severe injuries.
The trial court had initially convicted Baneshwar Mahato under Sections 148 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, while acquitting the co-accused. However, upon revision, the High Court found several discrepancies in the prosecution's case. Key witnesses provided inconsistent statements about the identity of the perpetrator, and there was a noted failure by the investigating officer to examine crucial witnesses.
The medical evidence corroborated the injuries but did not conclusively identify the assailant. Notably, the testimony of the victim, Bishnupada Mahato, was found to be contradictory, failing to definitively attribute the assault to the petitioner.
The court observed that amidst the commotion during the incident, it was plausible that the victim might not have accurately identified the individual responsible for the injuries. Given the lack of conclusive evidence and the presence of a counter-case involving injuries to the accused, the prosecution was deemed to have failed in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This judgment highlights the critical importance of consistency and corroboration in witness testimonies for securing convictions, especially in cases involving significant personal and property disputes. The acquittal underscores the court's commitment to the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty,' requiring the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Bottom Line:
Indian Penal Code - Benefit of doubt granted to petitioner due to lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the identity of the perpetrator.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 148, 149, 324, 326, Criminal Procedure Code Section 161, 144
Baneshwar Mahato v. Bishnupada Mahato, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857836
