‘Prosecution needn’t prove case with absolute certainty’

Kolkata: Observing that in criminal jurisprudence prosecution is expected to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but that does not mean with absolute certainty or by eliminating every possibility of innocence, Calcutta High Court dismissed appeals of four convicts in a 1983 case.

The bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra was moved challenging the convictions. The case originated from incidents on August 16, 1983. The charges against the appellants broadly were culpable homicide not amounting to murder and voluntarily causing hurt and causing hurt on provocation.

The first incident involved a scuffle at a paddy field where the complainant attempted to impound cattle owned by one of the accused who along with others assaulted the complainant which was interrupted by two neighbours. While the complainant was returning home he was assaulted again by the accused persons with sticks, sustaining shoulder and chest injuries. The two neighbours intervened again.

Next, the accused persons forcibly entered the complainant’s home. When opposed by the complainant and his father, two of the accused assaulted the father. The complainant then fired a blank shot from his gun, causing the group to retreat, but they continued to surround the house, threatening to kill him and set the house on fire. Complainant’s father succumbed to his injuries due to the assault, as medical help was inaccessible.

The court observed that testimonies of prosecution witnesses were consistent and corroborated by independent witnesses, medical evidence and documentary exhibits. The prosecution established the accused’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

The court dismissed the defence’s objection over the validity of the autopsy report which it noted was admitted under Section 294 CrPC with the consent of all parties and marked as ‘Exhibit 4’. The defence had objected to its reliability due to the non-examination of the conducting doctor.

The court observed the defense had a weak case. The third incident demonstrated an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing culpable homicide, inferred from the coordinated and violent nature of the assault on the complainant’s father. The independent witnesses bolstered the prosecution’s case.