Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court

“Vague, Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Role Cannot Sustain Conviction Under Section 323 IPC”, In a powerful reaffirmation of the individual culpability principle under criminal law, the Calcutta High Court on February 6, 2026, set aside the conviction of a man accused of assault under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that no specific role was attributed to him, and the prosecution failed to prove common intention among the alleged group of assailants.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta acquitted the petitioner Prasanta Pakray @ Shibu, noting that the entire prosecution case was built on vague, omnibus allegations, with no overt act or individual participation proved.

“The allegations levelled against the present petitioner are vague, non-specific and omnibus, and do not specify a role attributed to him so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 323 IPC,” the Court held (Para 20).

The High Court set aside the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court on 17.05.2016 and affirmed by the Appellate Court on 15.12.2016, in a case that had lingered for over 18 years since the incident.

Vague Allegations of Assault Over Cigarette Dispute in 2005

The case dates back to 30th December 2005, when the de facto complainant, Jogindar Chowdhury, alleged that three men came to his shop, demanded cigarettes, and on being asked to wait, physically assaulted him, broke his spectacles, and caused injuries. An FIR was lodged the next day at Narkeldanga Police Station, leading to the registration of Case No. 451 of 2005 under Sections 341/323/114 IPC.

The petitioner, along with two co-accused (who passed away during the pendency of the case), was convicted solely on the basis of the complainant’s general statement that “all three accused assaulted him with fists and blows”. No specific injury or act was attributed to Prasanta Pakray.

“No Specific Role Alleged—Conviction Cannot Rest on Group Accusation Without Proving Common Intention”

The High Court took strong exception to the blanket accusation that “all the accused persons assaulted the victim”, holding that such general statements are insufficient to establish individual criminal liability.

“In such a general and omnibus allegation, all the accused persons cannot be convicted and punished without proving their common intentions… if there is no common intention, the petitioner is not liable,” the Court ruled (Para 19).

The Court emphasised that mere presence at the scene or being named in a group does not justify conviction unless the role played by each accused is clearly established.

“Courts require specific details regarding date, time, place, manner of assault and evidence of injury for conviction,” Justice Gupta observed (Para 20).

Prosecution Evidence Riddled with Contradictions—Benefit of Doubt Extended

The Court found numerous inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence:

Contradictory versions between the victim (P.W.1) and his son (P.W.5) on how the assault occurred and who did what.

Discrepancies in the address of the shop where the incident allegedly occurred—P.W.1 mentioned 136/3 or 136/H/2, while P.W.5 said it was 136/2, Narkeldanga Main Road.

No seizure of broken spectacles, despite that being a key part of the alleged assault.

The victim himself admitted he did not know the petitioner personally, raising doubts about how his name appeared in the complaint.

Independent witnesses (P.Ws 3 and 4) did not support the prosecution, and were not declared hostile, which weakened the prosecution’s case further (Para 14).

In light of these inconsistencies, the Court observed:

“When the place of occurrence is not fully proved, the entire case is blotted out by the prosecution witnesses, who claim to be eye-witnesses” (Para 17).

Medical Evidence Failed to Link Accused—Injuries Could Be from Fall

The medical officer (P.W.2) confirmed the presence of injuries but did not name any accused in the injury report. Moreover, the doctor admitted that such injuries could be caused by a fall, undermining the prosecution’s claim that the injuries were inflicted by the accused (Para 18).

Conviction Not Based on Substantive Evidence—High Court Corrects Miscarriage of Justice

Reiterating the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 401 and 482 CrPC, the High Court observed that where findings of fact are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice, interference is warranted.

“This Court finds both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have erred in convicting the petitioner under Section 323 of IPC,” the Court concluded (Para 21).

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted and released from his bail bonds.

This ruling will have wider implications for criminal prosecutions involving group assaults and common intention, reminding trial courts that general accusations are not enough—specific role attribution and clear evidence of shared intent are mandatory for conviction.

Date of Decision: 06.02.2026