Injured Eyewitness Testimony Carries Higher Evidentiary Value Than Procedural Flaws or Investigative Gaps — Calcutta High Court

"Even If Victim’s Family Initiated Altercation, Brutal Daylight Homicide Is Unshakably Proved" — Calcutta High Court delivered a landmark ruling, arising from the brutal group assault and murder of Lalchand Mallick in Dingel village, West Bengal. The court upheld the conviction of ten accused persons under Section 302 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC, and notably acquitted one accused for lack of sufficient evidence.

The judgment stands out for its emphatic reiteration of the principle that injured eyewitness testimony, if credible, can withstand minor inconsistencies and even lapses in police investigation.

The incident dates back to 9th November 2005, when Tayeb Ali Sk was seen ploughing over a disputed boundary ('aile') on land cultivated by Haphijuddin Mallick (PW 4). An altercation followed, and Tayeb returned with a mob of 20–30 persons from Borobighe village, allegedly armed with Ramdao, Tangi, and sticks. They attacked Haphijuddin, his sons — including Lalchand Mallick, who died from a severe blow to the neck — and other family members.

The Trial Court convicted eleven persons under Sections 302 and 326 IPC. The present appeals sought reversal of that conviction.

“Even if the Genesis of the Incident Is in Doubt, the Actual Homicidal Assault Remains Undeniable”

The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to clarify who initiated the altercation. Witness PW 13 stated it was PW 4 who first attacked the accused’s group. The Court acknowledged this possibility:

“Even if it is accepted that Tayeb Ali and Faijuddin were first assaulted by PW 4... it is the ensuing attack on the victims, who were outnumbered thereafter, that resulted in the death of Lalchand and grievous injuries to PWs 2, 3 and 4.”

The bench held that the retaliatory violence and murder cannot be legally condoned, even if the victims provoked the accused initially.

“Faulty Investigation Does Not Automatically Result in Acquittal”

Appellants contended that:

• FIR timing was dubious,

• Weapons were not recovered,

• Dying declaration of PW2 (Burhan) was not produced.

The Court dismissed these concerns:

“A faulty investigation will not automatically result in the acquittal of the accused if the evidence on record is unimpeachable.”

Relying on State of U.P. v. Wasif Haider (2019) 2 SCC 203, the bench clarified that medical and eyewitness evidence can outweigh investigative deficiencies, especially when injuries are well-documented and consistent with witness accounts.

“Minor Contradictions in Eyewitness Testimonies Are Natural, Not Fatal”

The defense pointed out discrepancies in witnesses’ accounts — such as who held Lalchand before the fatal blow was struck. The Court considered this inevitable:

“If each of the prosecution witnesses had given the same evidence, it could have been suspected as parrot-like evidence.”

Relying on Pedda Narayana v. State of A.P., the bench observed:

“A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and... get confused regarding sequence of events or fill up details from imagination.”

The Court found the minor contradictions natural, especially given the scale of the mob (20–30 people) and the melee that unfolded.

“The Principal Assailants Are Clearly Identified by Multiple Injured Eyewitnesses”

The most crucial evidence came from injured eyewitnesses PWs 2, 3, and 4, who survived the attack and consistently named the assailants. The Court noted:

“Each of the aforesaid witnesses... have clearly deposed that Maynul Bere inflicted one fatal blow on the nape of the neck of Lalchand.”

“Faijuddin, Moijuddin and Latif... caught hold of the hands of the deceased... Maynul inflicted the death blow.”

The Court held this to be clear proof of common intention under Section 34 IPC.

“No Gunshot Injury, No Pistol Recovered — Benefit of Doubt to One Accused”

Only Waser Sk @ Wacher Mayra received relief. Some witnesses claimed he held a pistol to Lalchand’s chest or neck. However:

“No gunshot wound was found by any of the doctors, nor was any pistol recovered.”

The Court held that:

“There is no clear evidence against Waser Sk. for having assisted... in the killing of Lalchand... he must therefore be given the benefit of doubt and hence acquitted.”

The Court upheld the conviction of the following appellants under Section 302 read with 34 IPC:
Maynul Bere, Moijuddin, Faijuddin, Latif — for their direct role in the homicide.

Conviction under Section 326 IPC was sustained against:
Mosaref @ Mosa, Jahangir, Ismail Mallick, Atab, Tayeb Ali, Noor Islam — for grievously injuring PWs 2, 3 and 4.

“The ingredients of Section 326 are clearly satisfied here in that the aforesaid accused persons caused grievous hurt... with sharp cutting weapons and were caused voluntarily.”

The appeal of Waser Sk was allowed, and his conviction set aside.

“CRA 320 of 2015 is allowed... Bail bonds of Waser Sk shall stand discharged.”

“CRA 283 of 2015 and CRA 266 of 2015 are dismissed.”

All convicted persons were directed to surrender forthwith to serve remaining sentence.

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment reiterates that real-time brutality, witnessed and survived by injured victims, trumps procedural irregularities. In holding the convictions firm, the Court strongly emphasized the legal principle:

“The evidence of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside... Minor discrepancies are expected — they are marks of truth, not fabrication.”

Even in the face of a possibly flawed beginning to the conflict, the culpability of those who later returned with weapons and murdered a man in cold blood could not be erased.

Date of Decision: 18th August 2025