Death alone not enough: High Court sets aside conviction over evidence flaws
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has acquitted one Tushar Das, previously sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment for causing the death of Binoy Pramanick in 2008, following a violent quarrel over rainwater drainage in Howrah.
Justice Prasenjit Biswas set aside the conviction, citing contradictions in witness testimonies, lapses in investigation and failure to establish a direct link between Das and the fatal injury. The incident occurred on the evening of July 2, 2008, in village Sibanipur. A dispute over rainwater flowing from the complainant’s house escalated when the prosecution alleged that Das, along with Naba Kr. Das and Tarun Das, assaulted Pramanick. The key allegation was that Das struck the victim on the head with a wooden bar. The victim was initially treated at a nearby state general hospital and later transferred to Calcutta Medical College and Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries nine days later, on July 11.
The complaint was lodged by the victim’s son and police seized the alleged weapon, filing charges against all three accused. During the trial, 13 witnesses,including family members, neighbours and medical personnel, were examined and documents such as the FIR, seizure list, injury reports and post-mortem report were produced. The trial court convicted Das but acquitted the co-accused, indicating no proof of common intention.
On appeal, the court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence. It found that the victim’s son, the key witness, contradicted himself on whether he had witnessed the assault. Other testimonies were inconsistent, hearsay, or affected by personal relations. The authenticity of the FIR and seizure of the wooden bar was challenged, while the investigating officer admitted lapses, including failing to question the victim or his treating doctor during the critical period after the assault.
While the autopsy confirmed death due to a head injury, the court observed that no evidence directly linked Das to the fatal blow beyond reasonable doubt. Emphasising that convictions require credible proof, the court stressed that testimonies from interested witnesses must be treated with extreme caution.
