Dock Identification Is Not Optional—When Victim Fails to Identify Accused, Conviction Becomes Legally Unsustainable: Calcutta HC

“Presumption of innocence is not a formality but a fundamental right—when inconsistencies are glaring and evidence incomplete, conviction cannot stand”, In a major judgment underscoring the centrality of reasonable doubt and fair trial principles, the Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das ruled that the trial court had wrongly relied on uncorroborated and contradictory testimonies to convict the accused for an alleged grievous knife attack.

“The learned Trial Court ignored glaring inconsistencies as minor and gave undue credence to the testimony of the injured and his daughter despite significant investigative lapses and evidentiary gaps.”

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and no conviction under Section 326 IPC could be sustained based on the record

Background: Allegation of Brutal Night-Time Assault with Bamfok Knife

The case revolved around an incident from 2 April 2007, when the de facto complainant alleged that her father, Pradeep Alley, was attacked with a sharp weapon (bamfok) by the appellant, Rajman Thapa, around 8:30 PM in a Darjeeling village. The injuries were said to be severe and the victim was later treated at North Bengal Medical College and Hospital.

However, the charge under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) was not proven during trial, and the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 326 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons.

“Medical Report Lacked Hospital Seal—Injuries Not Consistent with Alleged Weapon”

The High Court noted a series of flaws in the prosecution’s case:

• The medical report lacked the hospital seal, and the doctor who signed it never stated he had personally treated the victim.

• While the bamfok is a sharp weapon, the report showed only a 3 cm cut injury, with no evidence of deep stab wounds consistent with a lethal attack.

• The alleged compound fractures on the legs were not matched with visible cut injuries, and no forensic report was available.

“The seized weapon was never produced in court. No evidence was led to show it was bloodstained or sent to forensic lab. Even the victim’s clothes were not examined.”

“No Independent Witnesses Called—Moonlit Night or Darkness?”

The credibility of the witnesses was also questioned. The de facto complainant claimed it was a moonlit night, while the victim admitted there was no electricity and it was dark. Neighbours who were allegedly closest to the scene were neither examined by police nor brought to court.

“Bal Kumar Thapa, the adjacent neighbour, was never called despite being present during or after the incident… This raises serious doubts about the prosecution's effort to uncover the truth.”

“Sketch maps failed to show houses of all relevant witnesses. Witnesses contradicted each other on who wrote the complaint.”

“Identification of Accused Not Made in Court”—Judge Questions Visual Recognition in Darkness

Perhaps the most damning omission was that neither the injured nor the eyewitnesses identified the accused in court, stating the accused was not present during evidence deposition.

“How could identification of the assailant be relied on when no dock identification was made and conditions were dark? The only consistent fact is that the village lacked electricity.”

“No Motive, No Explanation for Sudden Attack”—Court Finds Prosecution Story Lacks Coherence

Though the prosecution claimed the attack was unprovoked, it failed to establish any motive for the alleged assault. The defence witnesses suggested the victim had been intoxicated and fell while fleeing, an account the Court did not wholly accept but considered relevant to question the prosecution's version.

“It is difficult to imagine someone waiting with a lethal weapon to attack another without any apparent motive—especially in a quiet village setting late at night.”

Conviction and Sentence Set Aside

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that the conviction under Section 326 IPC was unsustainable:

“No reason was assigned by the trial court to justify conviction under Section 326 IPC when the charge under Section 307 IPC had already failed. On the same evidence, one cannot infer intent without support.”

“In the absence of clear, cogent, and credible evidence, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.”

The appellant was acquitted and discharged from his bail bond.

This judgment is a vital reaffirmation of criminal jurisprudence: doubt must always favour the accused, and courts must vigilantly guard against convicting on the basis of assumptions, contradictory statements, or uncorroborated narratives.

“Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. A man cannot be deprived of liberty unless guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.”

Date of Decision: 20 May 2025