Ocular Testimony, Medical Evidence, and Silence of Accused Create a Chain So Complete: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction

“Where Accused Remain Silent and Eyewitness Accounts Are Clear, Conviction Cannot Be Faulted” —  In a judgment that reinforces the primacy of consistent eyewitness testimony supported by medical evidence, the Calcutta High Court upheld the convictions arising from a fatal assault over a land dispute in 1983. The Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra dismissed both appeals, affirming the findings of the trial court that Sanu Khan, Saida Khatun, Saira Khatun, and Jaheda Bibi were responsible for a series of assaults that culminated in the death of Abdul Khan.

“The evidence of PWs 1, 7, and 8—clear, coherent and supported by medical opinion—unerringly points to the accused persons.”

“The Defence Version Is a Bare Denial—Nothing More”

The appellants argued that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, and sought to discredit the post-mortem report on the ground that the doctor who conducted the autopsy was not examined.

The Court, however, noted that the post-mortem report was marked as Exhibit 4 under Section 294 CrPC with consent of the defence. Therefore: “The genuineness of the document cannot now be challenged. Such a report becomes admissible even in absence of the examining doctor.”

Moreover, the Court observed that the accused remained silent during their Section 313 CrPC examinations and provided no alternate version of events: “None of the accused has given any version of what the actual incident was... It is an admitted position that the victim Abdul Khan died on the date and place alleged.”

Drawing on Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of A.P., the Court held: “If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of their statement under Section 313, the court can draw an adverse inference.”

“Medical Evidence Corroborates the Assault Narrated by Eyewitnesses”

The testimony of Dr. Tapas Das (PW10), who conducted the inquest, described external and internal injuries consistent with a violent assault, particularly injuries to the ribs and spleen that matched the account of kicks and blows described by eyewitnesses.

The High Court emphasized:

“Medical evidence is not contradictory to ocular evidence—it corroborates it.”

The trial court had found that the injury patterns were consistent with a forceful and deliberate assault, and not accidental or coincidental. The High Court found no reason to interfere.

“Conviction Under Section 304 Part I IPC Is Fully Justified”

The assault, though not premeditated, was found to be intentional and inflicted with knowledge that it was likely to cause death. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC, observing:

“The act was not with intent to kill but with such knowledge that it was likely to cause death.”

As regards the injuries caused to Sattar Ali Khan, the son of the deceased, the conviction under Section 323 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt was also upheld.

The Court found that the trial judge had meticulously analyzed the evidence and delivered a well-reasoned judgment. Rejecting the appeals, the Bench concluded: “There is nothing perverse in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Judge... The prosecution’s case is not only probable, but cogently established.”

Accordingly, the convictions and sentences were affirmed, and the accused were directed to surrender to serve the remaining portion of their sentences.

Date of Deciaion: 7 May 2025