Conviction Unsafe When Identification Fails in Night Assault: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Stone-Pelting Death

"Injured Witnesses Failed to Identify Accused Due to Darkness; Medical Evidence Inconclusive", Calcutta High Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 304A IPC after observing that the conviction by the Sessions Court was based on infirm and speculative evidence, with critical failure to prove identity of the accused, inconsistent medical findings, and no recovery of torchlights allegedly used during the attack. The judgment, delivered by Justice Prasenjit Biswas, emphasizes the centrality of identification in group assault cases, particularly during night-time incidents, and reaffirms the rule that benefit of doubt must be given when key prosecution evidence is unreliable.

“No One Could Recognize the Assailants Due to Darkness” – Prosecution's Own Witnesses Undermine Conviction

At the heart of the dispute was an incident dated 6th January 1984, where a group, including the complainant and the appellant, was allegedly chased and assaulted with stones near Changtong Tea Estate in Darjeeling. Two people died, and others were injured. The trial court in Sessions Case No. 17/89 had convicted the appellant under Section 304A IPC (causing death by a rash or negligent act) and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment by judgment dated 27th April 1991.

However, the High Court found that the conviction was unsafe, primarily because none of the key prosecution witnesses could identify the assailants, including the appellant.

“P.W.6 clearly stated that at the time of the assault, it was already dark, and due to the prevailing darkness, he was unable to recognize the assailants who attacked them.” [Para 29]

Similarly, P.W.3, the complainant, and P.W.4, another injured witness, both admitted they could not identify the accused, citing the absence of light.

The Court noted with emphasis:

“When all three material witnesses... have consistently admitted their inability to recognize the assailants, it was wholly unjustified on the part of the learned Trial Court to convict the appellant without any credible evidence of identification.” [Para 12]

"Torchlights Allegedly Used Were Never Seized" – Investigation Criticised for Lapses

The prosecution alleged that the assailants had used torchlights during the attack. However, the Court pointedly criticized the failure of the Investigating Agency to seize or produce any such torchlight, calling it a serious investigative lapse:

“The failure to recover or produce the torch lights... creates a substantial doubt about whether such torch lights were actually used... and casts a reasonable suspicion on the authenticity and completeness of the prosecution narrative.” [Para 40]

This omission was seen as fatal in a case where visibility and identification were the central issues.

Medical Evidence Did Not Support Alleged Stone Assault – Could Be Result of Fall

In a further blow to the prosecution, the medical evidence failed to support its narrative of intentional assault by stone-pelting.

P.W.1, the autopsy surgeon, stated that the injuries were consistent with a fall on a hard or rocky surface, and P.W.2, who treated the injured, offered similar views. The Court noted:

“The injuries could very well be the result of a fall on a rough and hard surface, rather than being inflicted by the act of pelting stones as alleged by the prosecution.” [Para 61]

The Court highlighted that the injury reports were vague, lacking description of the weapon or nature of the injuries, and failed to clarify whether the injuries were from an intentional assault or an accidental fall.

Independent Witnesses Did Not Incriminate the Appellant – No Eyewitness Testimony of Assault

Multiple independent prosecution witnesses including P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, and P.W.11 either did not witness the actual assault or did not name or implicate the appellant in any way. The Court found that:

“Their complete silence... raises grave doubts about the authenticity, reliability, and overall veracity of the prosecution story.” [Para 50]

Especially noteworthy was P.W.11, one of the first persons to reach the scene, who did not state anything against the appellant, and yet was not declared hostile by the prosecution, meaning his testimony stood unchallenged and part of the prosecution’s own case.

Failure to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Conviction Set Aside

The Court concluded that no reliable evidence, either direct or circumstantial, existed to link the appellant to the deaths or injuries. The learned trial judge had, according to Justice Biswas, misappreciated material evidence, leading to a manifest miscarriage of justice.

“There appears to be nothing on record to indicate that the present appellant had any involvement in the commission of the alleged offence.” [Para 62]

“I am of the opinion that there is illegality and material irregularity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction... and as such, it is liable to be set aside.” [Para 63]

Appeal Allowed – Acquittal Ordered with Compliance of Section 437A CrPC

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellant was acquitted, and the High Court directed his bail bond to be discharged, subject to furnishing a fresh bond under Section 437A CrPC (Section 481, BNSS, 2023) for a period of six months.

“The appellant is to be discharged from his respective bail bonds... if he is not wanted in any other cases.” [Para 66]

This decision underscores a vital legal principle that in criminal trials, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially where identification of the accused is in question and the medical evidence does not corroborate the version of events.

Date of Decision: 13th November 2025