A man convicted under Section 323 IPC was acquitted after two decades when the Calcutta High Court held that vague, omnibus allegations and contradictory testimony cannot sustain criminal conviction.The case exposes how men can be dragged through the system for years without specific proof or accountability.
KOLKATA: The case was finally decided by the Calcutta High Court, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, before Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, bringing an end to a long legal battle that began with an Assault Case at a local shop in Kolkata.
The case started in December 2005, when a shopkeeper alleged that three men came to his shop at night and asked for cigarettes. When he asked them to wait, an argument followed. According to the complaint, the men allegedly abused him, caught his shirt, wrongfully restrained him, and assaulted him with fists and blows.
He claimed he was injured and taken to NRS Hospital for treatment. Based on this complaint, a police case was registered under Sections 341, 323, and 114 of the IPC.
After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet. The trial court later convicted all three accused under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to six months’ simple imprisonment with a fine. The appellate court upheld the conviction.
During the long pendency of the case, two of the three accused persons passed away. Their cases were abated. Only one accused remained to contest the matter before the High Court.
When the High Court examined the record, several serious problems became clear. The complainant did not clearly state who among the accused actually assaulted him. His allegations were general and applied to all the accused. No specific role was attributed to the surviving accused at any stage.
The Court clearly recorded, “No specific role is attributed to the present petitioner.” This observation became central to the final decision.
The Court further noted:
“A general allegation has been made against the present petitioner for assaulting him with fists and blows, along with other persons.”
This meant the complaint did not separate individual acts or responsibility.
Serious contradictions were also highlighted. Different witnesses gave different versions about the place of occurrence. The judge observed:
“There are several contradictions regarding the place of occurrence.” This created doubt about the prosecution’s case.
The Court further stated, “The deposition of the prosecution witnesses does not corroborate the place of occurrence.” In criminal law, when even the location of the incident is doubtful, the entire case becomes weak.
Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case. Despite this, they were not declared hostile. Important material evidence, like broken spectacles, was never seized or produced before the court.
Medical evidence also did not fully support the prosecution. The doctor admitted that such injuries could result from a fall. The Court recorded:
“The injury suffered by the victim cannot be ruled out upon considering the evidence of the doctor that such type of injuries can be sustained as a consequence of falling on the ground.”
On the issue of common intention, which is necessary when multiple accused are involved, the Court made a strong observation:
“No person can prove the common intention of the alleged accused.” Without proof of common intention, joint liability cannot be imposed.
The Court further held:
“The allegations levelled against the present petitioner are vague, non-specific and omnibus, and do not specify a role attributed to him so as to satisfy the essential ingredients of section 323 of the IPC.”
This clearly showed that the basic legal requirements for conviction were not fulfilled.
Finally, the Court concluded:
“This Court is not fully convinced that the prosecution evidence leads to the conclusion that the present petitioner… is guilty of an offence punishable under Section 323.”
The High Court also observed that both lower courts had erred in law while convicting the accused.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside both earlier judgments, acquitted the surviving accused, and discharged him from all bail bonds. After nearly two decades, the Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of criminal justice: conviction must be based on clear, specific, and reliable evidence, not on assumptions or broad allegations.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Description in Simple Terms | Relevance in This Case |
| Section 323 IPC | Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt | Accused were convicted under this section for allegedly assaulting the complainant |
| Section 341 IPC | Punishment for wrongful restraint | Allegation that the complainant was restrained during the incident |
| Section 114 IPC | Abettor present when offence committed | Applied because multiple accused were allegedly present during the incident |
| Section 34 IPC | Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention | Court examined whether common intention was proved; found it was not |
| Section 401 CrPC | Revisional powers of High Court | Petition filed under this provision to challenge conviction |
| Section 482 CrPC | Inherent powers of High Court | Invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice |
| Section 313 CrPC | Examination of accused by court | Accused were examined under this section during trial |
Case Details
- Case Title: Sambhu Das @ Shambhu Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Another
- Court: Calcutta High Court, Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side
- Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
- Case Number: C.R.R. 539 of 2017
- Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:202
- Date of Judgment: 06 February 2026
- Counsels:
- For the Petitioners: Mr. Amarta Ghose, Advocate, Mr. Sujon Chatterjee, Advocate, and Mr. Rohan Bavishi, Advocate
- For State: Ms. Faria Hossain, Learned APP, and Ms. Suparna Chatterjee, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Vague and omnibus allegations without assigning a specific role to each accused are not enough to convict a man in a criminal case.
- Mere naming of multiple accused does not prove common intention; the prosecution must clearly establish how and when each person participated.
- Contradictions in witness statements, especially about place of incident and manner of occurrence, seriously weaken the prosecution story.
- Medical evidence must support the prosecution version; when injuries can occur due to other reasons, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
- Criminal law requires strict proof beyond suspicion, and personal liberty cannot be curtailed on assumptions, general statements, or incomplete evidence.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.