Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ranjay Roy vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 August, 2025
2020:CHC-AS:10231
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
CRA 40 of 2020
Ranjay Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Mr. Koustav Bagchi
Mr. Debayan ghosh
Ms. Priti Kar
For the State : Mr. Debasis Roy, Ld. PP
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty
Heard on : 10.04.2025
Judgment on : 19.08.2025
Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. The instant appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19th December, 2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court Barrackpore in Sessions Trial No. 12(09) 2013. By the impugned judgment learned court below convicted the appellant and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for committing offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC and also sentenced to pay fine.
1
2020:CHC-AS:10231
2. One Samrat Paul, who is the son of the victim lodged a complaint at Jagaddal P.S. to the effect that on 19th September 2011 at about 8.30 P.m., the appellant entered into the house of the victim in a drunken condition and was misbehaving with the women focks of the defacto complainant's family and when the victim raised protest, the appellant had stabbed him by a knife and had caused grievous injury. Thereafter the victim i.e. PW-2 was taken to Hospital where he had undergone surgery.
3. On the basis of written complaint a case under sections 341/326/307 of the IPC was started and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the present appellant. On the basis of allegations charges were framed under sections 341/326/307 of the IPC against the appellant.
4. Prosecution in support of its case examined 6 witnesses and after completion of examination of prosecution witnesses, the appellant herein was examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, appellant did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. Out of six witnesses, PW1 namely Samir Paul is the defacto complainant of the instant case and he claimed himself as eye witness of the occurrence. He has stated that the incident took place on 17.09.2011 at about 8.30 p.m., when the accused came to their house in drunken state and started misbehaving with the female focks. His father raised protest and then the appellant herein stabbed his father with a knife and caused injury. He further stated that he took his father to the local hospital at Bhatpara wherefrom he was referred to JNM Hospital, Kalyani. He has also stated that he was examined by the police during investigation. In the cross examination he stated that their house situates in a densely 2 2020:CHC-AS:10231 populated area and he has also stated in the cross examination that he had written the complaint under the guidance of police sitting at police station.
5. PW2 Samir Paul, is the victim and he identified the accused and he has stated that incident took place on the 18th day nearly two and a half years ago at around 8.30 p.m., when the accused came to their house in drunken condition and abused his wife with filthy language. He raised protest and then accused took out one knife and had stabbed him on his abdomen for which he sustained deep cut injury. He was taken to the hospital by his son and police also examined him during investigation. However in the cross examination he stated that he has disclosed the fact for the first time before the court and the accused is his neighbour and well known to him.
6. PW-3 is the medical officer of JNM Hospital who stated that on 17.09.2011 at about 22.49 he had examined one Samir Paul who appeared before him with a stab injury in left interior abdominal wall and huge amount of blood clot coming out from the punctured wound. On examination it was found that the patient needed surgical operation and as such at about 2.30 a.m. on 18.09.2011, when the operation was done it was found that there are multiple intestinal perforation which was repaired by junior doctors under his supervision. He further stated that the patient was discharged on request on 28.09.2011 with oral medication. He proved total eight treatments sheets which stands in the name of victim and which bears seal and signature of the hospital authority and marked as exhibit 2 series. However in the cross examination he stated that stab injury may be caused accidentally. PW4 who is relative of victim stated that he received a 3 2020:CHC-AS:10231 phone call on 17.09.2011 wherefrom be came to know that present appellant has stabbed his uncle Samir Paul. He went to Jagaddal P.S. and on the next day he went to hospital to meet the injured person. He also stated that he was examined by the IO. He denied during cross examination that his uncle Samir Paul sustained accidental injury.
7. PW5 is the SI of Police who received the complaint from PW1 and started the instant case and he stated during cross examination that he has no personal knowledge about the alleged occurrence. PW6 is another police officer who subsequently took the investigation of the case and submitted charge sheet being the investigating officer, against the present appellant. In the cross examination he admitted that he did not pray for police custody after surrender of the accused and he did not make any seizure from the victim also. During the examination of the accused person under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant only pleaded that he is innocent.
8. The appellant herein argued before the court below that witnesses namely PW-1 to PW4 are related interested witnesses and among them the evidence adduced by PW4 is hearsay evidence and accordingly his testimony has to be considered with a great caution. It was also argued before the Court below that the PW1 being the defacto complainant has narrated a version which is contradictory to the version deposed by PW2. It was also argued that the place of occurrence had not been proved and the manner in which the alleged incident is claimed to have happened is also materially contradictory. It was also argued that the mother of the PW1, who is also the wife of PW2 is vital witness in this case, but she was not examined either during investigation or during trial. Infact no independent witness was 4 2020:CHC-AS:10231 examined, no blood-stained soil was collected from the alleged place of occurrence, the alleged weapon was never recovered, which creates a serious doubt over the prosecution case. It was also argued that the medical documents proved during the trial, does not bear the name of the accused as assailant and the medical officer who treated victim admitted that such injury may also be caused due to accident. Accordingly learned counsel appearing for the accused vehemently argued before the trial court that the chain of circumstances has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution failed to prove with absolute certainty that no person other than accused has committed the alleged offence.
9. Learned trial court while passed the impugned judgment has dealt with the aforesaid issues raised by the learned counsel for the accused and he made an observation that the evidence of PW-1 and PW2 is believable. It appears that no question regarding stabbing of injured Samir Paul was asked at the instance of the accused during trial and no denial was taken on the part of the defence regarding the testimony made by Samrat, during cross examination and therefore, he observed that the evidence of Samrat i.e. PW1 remains unchallenged. While answering the arguments made by the accused that PW1 and PW2 and PW4 are related interested witnesses and there is no credibility in their evidence, the court below held that the accused is neighbour of the victim and as such identity of the accused remain established and unchallenged and furthermore there is nothing to show that the accused during cross examination could able to contradict the evidence adduced by the eye witnesses. He further held that the injury of victim has also been established by the evidence of PW3 who has also 5 2020:CHC-AS:10231 deposed that Samrat Paul was subjected to surgical operation under his supervision and said statement remains unchallenged and fully established that Samir Paul was subjected to stab wounds for which he was subjected to operation. Accordingly court below held that the testimony of the injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy and the fact that the witness was injured at the relevant time lends support to the testimony that the witness was present during occurrence and the evidence of the injured witness stands on the higher pedestal than ordinary eye witness and the testimony of the injured is enough to base the conviction and no further corroboration is required. He further held that the evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted. The identity of the accused has not been questioned which establishes that the victim was stabbed by no other than the accused person.
10. Regarding non-recovery of alleged weapon, the court below accepted the explanation given by the prosecution that IO did not get an opportunity to arrest or recover the weapon because the accused fled away from the spot immediate after the incident to evade arrest and thereafter surrendered before the court. Relying upon the judgment of Nisar Khan @ Guddu and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal (2006) 9 SCC 386, he came to a definite opinion that non-recovery of the weapon is not a ground to disbelieve the creditworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly he convicted the present appellant after considering the entire materials on record.
11. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, Mr. Koustav Bagchi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6 2020:CHC-AS:10231 appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses namely PW-1 PW2 and PW4 are related interested witnesses and that the place of occurrence was never proved. He further argued that according to the FIR the father of defacto complainant was stabbed in front of the house of Gopal Saha but during evidence said PW1 stated that his father was stabbed in their house. Moreover said Gopal Saha was never examined as an witness. He further argued that taking the version of PW1 in his examination at its face value, it appears that the house of the victim situates in a densely populated area but no independent eye witness adduced evidence in support of prosecution case. His further argument is that according to the prosecution case after the alleged incident victim was taken to Bhatpara State General Hospital, wherefrom he was referred to JNM Hospital but the attending doctor of Bhatpara Hospital was never examined, nor the medical sheet of that hospital were marked as exhibit. Moreover none of the medical documents disclose the name of the accused as the assailant who alleged to have inflicted the injury to PW 2. He further argued that the alleged incident took place on17.09.2011 but the complaint was lodged on 19.09.2011 and as such the lodging of the FIR itself is doubtful. Furthermore the PW2/victim in his examination in chief has stated that he was examined during investigation but during his cross examination he has stated that he disclosed the fact for the first time in court. Such severe contradiction makes his testimony doubtful. The mother of the PW1 being the vital witness has not been examined or brought on record to shed light on the alleged occurrence. Her evidence is material because the allegation is 7 2020:CHC-AS:10231 that the appellant had abused her, which gave genesis to the alleged incident. No independent witness have been examined or brought on record, no blood stained earth was collected from the alleged place of occurrence. The recovery of offending weapon was also not done and as such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is doubtful and liable to be set aside. In this context he relied upon the case of Satish Kumar and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another reported in (2020) 7 SCC 637.
12. Learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgement stating that the allegations against Appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence adduced by eye-witnesses corroborated by medical documents.
13. I have considered submissions made by both the parties.
14. In the instant case PW1 is the defacto complainant who is the son of the victim PW2 and both of them specifically stated that the appellant had stabbed and caused the grievous hurt. They are the star witnesses in support of prosecution case. In such a case where the father is the victim of stabbing and both the father and son are stated to be eye witnesses, their testimony is no doubt a crucial factor for awarding conviction, but the court must be carefully in assessing the evidence including the testimony, consistencies to the corroboration, and any potential bias, to determine guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In other words the court is required to evaluate the father and sons testimony for consistencies, clarity and coherence.
8
2020:CHC-AS:10231
15. In this case it is also required to be looked into whether the testimony of the claimed eye witnesses is supported by other evidence or not. In this context it is also required to be looked into whether the said witnesses have any personal interest or biasness that could affect their testimony.
16. Accordingly let me consider whether the father and the son's evidence corroborate with each other and align with other evidence to come to a conclusion whether prosecution has able to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, meaning thereby that there is no other logical explanation based on the evidence, is possible and the incident of stabbing, if any, was not possible to be caused by a person other than the present appellant.
17. I have already mentioned above the testimony of the defacto complainant namely Pw1and the testimony of the victim namely PW2. From the evidence of PW1, it transpires that he made a specific averments that the incident took place on 17th September, 2011 at 8.30 p.m. when appellant came to their house in a drunken condition and started misbehaving with the women fock and when his father raised protest, the appellant stabbed his father with a knife and caused grievous injury. Besides mere denial in the cross examination that accused was never in a drunken position or misbehaved with the women fock or stabbed the victim, nothing further appears to say that the evidence adduced in examination in chief was contradicted and as such the evidence of PW1 on material point remains unshaken. PW-2 is the victim who also stated that the accused came to their house in a drunken condition and abused his wife with filthy language and when he raised protest and pushed him out from his house he 9 2020:CHC-AS:10231 took out a knife and stabbed him on his abdomen, for which he sustained deep cut injury. Here also during cross examination there is only denial that accused never stabbed him and noting further disclosed during cross examination to shaken the evidence adduced by PW2/victim during cross examination. It appears from the evidence of PW3/ medical officer that he unequivocally stated that he examined the victim, who sustained stabbed injury in left interior abdominal wall and during operation he found multiple intestinal perforation which were repaired under his supervision at 2.30 a.m. on 18.09.2011. Here also the only suggestion given during cross examination was that such stabbed injury may also be caused accidentally.
18. In such view of the matter, it appears that the evidence of the eye witnesses namely PW1 and PW2 supported by medical reports marked exhibit, establishes the case and there is no material inconsistency in between the statements of PW1,2 and 3 along with medical papers and on the contrary it corroborates with each other. As such the question of potential biases, being related witness does not stand in the way to determine the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore in the presence of the consistencies, clarity and coherence of the testimony of the PW1, 2and 3, the Appellant has not brought any case that there was any animosity in between the Appellant and the said PWs to make out a case that the PWs have any present interest or biases to affect their testimony. The relationship between the PW1 and 2 may be father and son but it does not automatically disqualify them as credible witnesses. Since the father and the son's evidence corroborates with each other on material point and align with other evidences like medical documents and since the 10 2020:CHC-AS:10231 testimony of father and son being the eye witnesses is reliable and also not raises any doubt in their testimony and since an injury by a sharp cutting instrument like knife on the abdomen, endangering life amounts to grievous hurt, I find no impropriety or perversity in the impugned judgment and order of sentence.
19. It is true that Mr. Bagchi, learned counsel for the Appellant during course of argument pointed out about discrepancy in connection with place of occurrence in FIR with that of evidence of defacto complainant and that victim in his evidence in chief has stated that police had examined him during investigation while in cross-examination he stated that he had disclosed the fact first time in Court, but such variations in statement do not negate or contradict the main and core incriminating evidence of committing stab injury to the victim by the Appellant voluntarily, with the knowledge to cause grievous hurt to the victim, which are the ingredients of the offence. The contradictions pointed out during argument are insignificant when judged with the corroboration and proof of incriminating facts beyond doubt.
20. The incident took place on 17.09.2011 and said witnesses faced the dock in 2014-2015 at a time gap of 3 to 4 years and therefore minor contradictions on same details are quite natural and bound to occur, as held in Vinod Kumar Garg vs. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) reported in (2020) 2 SCC 88 (Para-14). It was also held that witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory, notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main and 11 2020:CHC-AS:10231 incriminating evidence involving the ingredients of the offence, if established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore when the evidence of eyewitnesses are consistent with the guilt of the Appellant on material point and does not consistent with his plea of innocence, the impugned judgments and order does not call for any interference.
21. CRA 40 of 2020 thus stands dismissed.
22. The appellant is directed to surrender before the court below within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order, to serve out sentence as imposed in the impugned judgment, failing which the Court below, in order to secure his attendance shall be at liberty to take any step including issuance of warrant of arrest.
23. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(DR. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.) 12