IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

Palas Dolui @ Tanai

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal

For the Appellant : Mr. Apan Saha,

Mr. Tasnim Ahmed.

For the State : Mr. Saryati Datta

Ms. Kanchan Roy.

Hearing concluded on : 27.02.2026

Judgment On : 18.03.2026

Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment

and order of conviction dated 23.06.2010 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Amta,

Howrah in connection with Sessions Trial No. 269/09 arising

out of Joypur P.S. Case No. 54/08 dated 28.07.08

corresponding to G.R. Case No.768/08 at the instance of the

appellant.

2

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

2. By passing the impugned judgment the present appellant was

found guilty for commission of offence punishable under

Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine of

Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further

rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned

judgment and order of conviction the present appellant has

preferred this instant appeal.

4. Shorn of extraneous details, the facts leading to the present

appeal may be summarized as follows:

“The instant case originated on the basis of a

written complaint lodged by Smt. Ratan Pramanick

before the Joypur Police Station. In the said complaint,

it was interalia stated that on 28.07.2008, at

approximately 9:30 A.M., one Sisir Mistry was engaged

in repairing the tile shed of the complainant’s house. At

that time, Palash Dolui, the appellant and next-door

neighbor of the complainant, objected to the said

repair work. According to the complaint, the victim,

who is the daughter-in-law of the de-facto

complainant, informed the appellant that the work was

being carried out within the boundaries of their own

land. On hearing this, the appellant allegedly returned

3

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

to his house, retrieved a “sabal” (iron rod), and struck

the victim on her head with the said weapon, causing a

bleeding injury. Subsequently, the injured victim,

Sandhya Pramanick, was initially taken to Joypur

Hospital for treatment and thereafter referred to the

Calcutta Medical College and Hospital for further

medical care. On the basis of the said complaint, a

formal case was registered at Joypur Police Station,

being Case No. 54/2008, dated 28.07.2008. Following

the completion of the investigation, the prosecuting

agency submitted a charge-sheet against the

appellant, Palash Dolui, under Sections 325 and 307 of

the Indian Penal Code”.

5. Charge was framed by the Trial Court against the accused

under Section 325/307 of the Indian Penal Code which was

read over and explained to the accused, in which he pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, prosecution

has examined as many as seven witnesses and documents

were marked as exhibit on its behalf. Prosecution also proved

the seized alamat which are marked as material exhibits.

Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced

on behalf of the defence.

6. Mr. Apan Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant,

has contended that the ingredients of Section 325 of the

4

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

Indian Penal Code have not been established against the

appellant, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of

conviction cannot be sustained. It is submitted by Mr. Saha

that the evidence on record, when scrutinized in its entirety,

fails to demonstrate that the appellant inflicted grievous hurt

upon the alleged victim as contemplated under the statutory

provisions.

7. The learned Advocate further pointed out that the statements

of the prosecution witnesses contain apparent contradictions

and material omissions, which go to the root of the

prosecution’s case. These inconsistencies, as submitted,

significantly undermine the reliability of the prosecution

evidence and create reasonable doubt regarding the

appellant’s culpability.

8. It is also submitted that the allegedly seized weapon, namely

the ‘sabol,’ was never subjected to scientific examination. This

omission, according to the learned Advocate, casts doubt on

whether the said weapon was actually employed in the

commission of the alleged offence. The non-examination of

this crucial piece of evidence, therefore, impairs the veracity

of the prosecution’s case.

9. Mr. Saha further assailed the prosecution for its failure to

examine a vital witness, one Sisir Mistry, who was present at

5

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

the relevant time and allegedly witnessed the incident. No

explanation has been provided for the non-examination of this

material witness, despite the apparent importance of his

testimony to the proper adjudication of the matter. In

addition, it is submitted that the incident in question occurred

in the presence of several individuals; however, the

prosecution failed to cite these independent witnesses. The

absence of testimony from such eyewitnesses, who could have

corroborated the occurrence of the offence, renders the

prosecution’s narrative less credible.

10. The learned Advocate drew the attention of this Court to the

statements of PW1 and PW3, submitting that their evidence is

inconsistent with the testimony of PW5 concerning the place of

occurrence. These discrepancies, it is argued, further diminish

the reliability of the prosecution’s case.

11. In view of the above, Mr. Saha, learned Advocate, submitted

that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed

by the learned Trial Court is legally unsustainable. It is,

therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to allow the

appeal preferred by the appellant and set aside the conviction.

12. Mr. Saryati Datta, learned Advocate appearing for the State,

submitted that there is no material on record which warrants

any interference with the findings of the learned Trial Court in

6

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

the impugned judgment and order of conviction. It was

contended that the prosecution case has been fully and

satisfactorily established through the depositions of the

material witnesses, and the Trial Court’s conclusions are based

on cogent and credible evidence.

13. According to the learned Advocate, PW1, Smt. Ratan

Pramanick, the defacto complainant, and PW5, Sandhya

Pramanick, the victim/injured, consistently supported the

prosecution’s case through their oral evidence. Although both

witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the

defence, nothing material could be elicited from their

testimony to render their accounts unreliable or

untrustworthy. Their statements clearly detail the events that

occurred on the relevant date, including the altercation

between the accused and the victim and the assault with the

offending weapon. The witnesses explicitly described the

conduct of the accused and the consequences of his actions,

leaving no doubt regarding the commission of the offence.

14. It was further submitted that PW3, Jharna Pramanick, an

independent eyewitness to the incident, corroborated the

statements of PW1 and PW5. PW3 deposed that in her

presence, the police seized the offending weapon, i.e. ‘sabal’,

along with other materials. This corroboration reinforces the

7

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

testimonies of PW1 and PW5 and underscores the reliability of

the evidence regarding the assault and the seizure of the

weapon.

15. The learned Advocate emphasized that there is no dispute as

to the occurrence of the offence. The witnesses collectively

established that the accused brought the ‘sabal’ from his

house and struck the victim on the head, causing severe

injuries. PW6, Dr. Sudakshina Bhar, who treated the victim,

confirmed that the injuries were grievous in nature, as

documented in the injury report, Exhibit-3. The offending

weapon was also duly marked as a material exhibit in the case

(Material Exhibit-1) and was identified in Court by the

witnesses, further substantiating the prosecution’s version of

the incident.

16. In view of the above, the learned Advocate submitted that the

prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The findings of the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant

under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code are therefore fully

justified. There is no ground for interference, and the

impugned judgment and order of conviction ought to be

upheld. Accordingly, it was prayed that the instant appeal filed

by the appellant be dismissed and the conviction and sentence

imposed by the Trial Court be sustained in all respects.

8

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

17. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions advanced by

both the parties and have gone through all the materials on

record.

18. The evidence of the material witnesses examined on behalf of

the prosecution clearly unfolds the manner in which the

incident occurred and consistently attributes the overt act to

the present appellant.

19. PW1, Smt. Ratan Pramanick, who is the mother-in-law of the

victim/injured and also the defacto complainant of the case,

deposed before the Trial Court narrating the incident in detail.

According to her testimony, on the relevant date and time one

Sisir Mistry was engaged in constructing a structure for a tile

shed in their old house. At that time, the present appellant-

accused raised objection to the construction of such structure.

The victim, who is the daughter-in-law of this witness, resisted

the objection and asserted that the structure was being

constructed on their own property and therefore the accused

had no reason to interfere. It is further stated by PW1 that

during the course of the ensuing altercation, the accused went

to his house, brought a sabal (iron rod) and suddenly struck

the victim on her head with the said weapon. As a result of the

severe blow, the victim sustained grievous bleeding injuries,

lost consciousness and fell down on the ground. PW1 further

9

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

stated in her evidence that the injury was so severe that brain

matter came out from the head of the victim.

20. PW1 further stated that immediately after the incident the

victim was first taken to Joypur B.B. Dhar Hospital and

thereafter she was referred to and admitted at Calcutta

Medical College and Hospital for better treatment. She also

deposed that during the course of investigation the police

recovered the offending weapon, namely the ‘sabal’, and also

seized blood-stained earth and blood-stained bamboo leaves

from the place of occurrence by preparing a seizure list. PW1

stated that she put her Left Thumb Impression (L.T.I.) on the

said seizure list as a witness to the seizure. During her

examination before the Trial Court, she also identified the

offending weapon that had been produced before the Court.

21. PW5, Sandhya Pramanick, who is the victim/injured in the

present case, also deposed before the Trial Court and her

testimony substantially corroborates the version of PW1. She

stated that on 28

th

July, 2008 at about 9:30 A.M., when one

Sisir Mistry was working in their house for making the

structure of a tile shed on their own land, the accused Palash

Dolui raised objection to such construction. According to this

witness, when the accused objected, she protested and

asserted that the construction was being carried out within

10

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

their own land and therefore there was no reason for the

accused to interfere. She further stated that during the course

of the altercation the accused brought a sabal-like material

and directly struck her on the head with the same. As a result

of such assault, she lost her senses and sat down on the

ground.

22. The injured witness further stated that she subsequently

received treatment at S.S.K.M. Hospital, Kolkata and that due

to the severe assault she had suffered physical infirmities and

was unable to move and walk easily thereafter. During the

course of her deposition before the Trial Court, this witness

identified the accused present in Court as well as the offending

weapon which was marked as Material Exhibit-1.

23. During cross-examination, PW5 stated that the altercation

between her and the accused continued for about two to five

minutes. She also stated that at the time of the incident PW3,

Jharna Pramanick, PW1, Ratan Pramanick and two other

persons, namely Aparna Pramanick and Sisir Mistry, were

present at the place of occurrence. It is true that Aparna

Pramanick and Sisir Mistry were not cited as witnesses on

behalf of the prosecution. However, the absence of their

examination does not in any manner detract from the

11

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

consistent and cogent testimonies of the witnesses who were

actually examined.

24. The evidence of PW5, being that of an injured witness, carries

significant evidentiary value. Her testimony finds substantial

corroboration from the evidence of PW1 with regard to the

manner in which the appellant assaulted her with the sabal. A

careful scrutiny of their depositions reveals that there is

nothing on record which would suggest that the appellant did

not commit the assault upon the victim with the said weapon.

Both PW1 and PW5 clearly identified the accused person as

well as the offending weapon in connection with the incident.

Although both witnesses were subjected to cross-examination

by the defence, nothing material could be elicited from their

cross-examination to render their testimonies unreliable or

untrustworthy.

25. PW3, Jharna Pramanick, who is a neighbour of the accused,

was examined as an independent witness to the occurrence.

In her evidence she stated that on the relevant date and time

when the tile shed structure of the house of PW1 and PW5 was

being constructed, the accused raised objection to such

construction. She further deposed that during the course of

the altercation the accused Palash Dolui went to his house,

brought a ‘sabal’ and struck the victim (PW5) on the head with

12

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

the said weapon. According to her testimony, as a result of the

blow the victim fell down on the ground in a fainted condition

and brain matter came out of her head accompanied by

profuse bleeding.

26. PW3 further stated that immediately after the incident the

victim was taken to the hospital for treatment. She also stated

that the police subsequently seized the offending weapon by

preparing a seizure list and she put her Left Thumb

Impression (L.T.I.) on the said seizure list as a witness to the

seizure.

27. Being a neighbour and an independent witness, PW3 had no

apparent reason to falsely implicate the accused. Her

testimony clearly establishes the role of the appellant in

committing the offence and lends further corroboration to the

statements made by PW1 and PW5. Although PW3 was also

subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the defence,

nothing substantial could be elicited to discredit her testimony.

Her evidence remains consistent and trustworthy and there is

no reason to discard the same.

28. Thus, upon a careful evaluation of the evidence of PW1, PW5

and PW3, it becomes evident that their testimonies are

consistent, mutually corroborative and clearly point towards

the involvement of the appellant in assaulting the victim with

13

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

the ‘sabal’, resulting in grievous injuries to her head. The

defence could not succeed in shaking their credibility through

cross-examination, and therefore their evidence inspires

confidence and can safely be relied upon.

29. The evidence of PW1, PW3, and PW5 receives strong

corroboration from the medical evidence of PW6, Dr.

Sudakshina Bhar, who treated the victim immediately after the

incident. In her deposition, PW6 stated that upon examination

she found a lacerated injury on the victim’s head. The victim

was admitted to the hospital in an unconscious state and had

also vomited. PW6 further deposed that six stitches were

required to close the laceration. According to the history

recorded in the injury report, the assault was perpetrated by

the accused, Palash Dolui @ Tanai, using a ‘sabal’ at

Simultala, behind the house of the victim.

30. PW6 described the nature of the injury as grievous and noted

that the injury was of recent origin at the time of examination.

She also observed that the weapon used was probably a blunt

object. PW6 exhibited the injury report before the Court,

which was marked as Exhibit-3. In her professional opinion

recorded in the said injury report, she stated that the

lacerated injury sustained by the victim could have been

caused by a strike from a ‘sabal’ like material, which

14

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

corresponds to Material Exhibit-1 produced before the Trial

Court. Thus, the medical evidence aligns closely with the

testimonies of PW1, PW3, and PW5, confirming both the

nature of the assault and the weapon used.

31. The defence, in its submissions, raised doubts regarding the

place of occurrence of the incident. In this regard, PW7, the

Investigating Officer, testified that the place of occurrence was

on the pathway near the victim’s house. Similarly, PW6, in

Exhibit-3, recorded the history of assault and specifically noted

that the incident took place at Simultala, behind the house of

the victim. Importantly, no questions were put to PW1 and

PW3 concerning the exact location, and PW5 herself stated

that she sustained the injuries on the house road. When read

together, the evidence of the victim, the Investigating Officer

(PW7), and the injury report (Exhibit-3) demonstrates that the

incident occurred on the pathway adjacent to the victim’s

house. The Trial Court rightly observed that for legal and

evidentiary purposes, the term “house” encompasses the area

of the house, including adjoining pathways, and is not

confined to any single room. Therefore, the minor discrepancy

regarding the precise location does not amount to a shift in

the place of occurrence and cannot weaken the prosecution’s

15

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

case. The Trial Court’s conclusion on this point is both

reasonable and justified.

32. At the hearing, the learned Advocate for the appellant argued

that although PW1 and PW5 referred to one Sisir Mistry as

working on the repair of the victim’s house at the time of the

incident, the prosecution did not examine him as a witness.

The Trial Court addressed this issue in its judgment, noting

that Sisir Mistry had been cited as charge-sheeted witness no.

6. However, he was ultimately not examined because he had

been “gained over” by the accused and would not have given

truthful evidence. The Court considered this explanation

sufficient and found no fault with the prosecution’s case for

not citing him.

33. In sum, the medical evidence of PW6 not only corroborates

the testimonies of PW1, PW3, and PW5 regarding the assault

and the weapon used but also confirms the grievous nature of

the injuries sustained by the victim. The Trial Court correctly

considered the minor variation in the description of the place

of occurrence and rightly rejected the defence’s attempt to

discredit the testimonies based on this ground. The reasoning

of the Trial Court on these points is well-founded and

supported by the evidence on record.

16

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

34. The evidence of PW3, Jharna Pramanick, who is an

independent witness to the incident, significantly reinforces

the testimonies of PW1 and PW5. PW3 specifically deposed

that on the relevant date and time, the appellant assaulted the

victim with a ‘sabal’, resulting in grievous injuries. Her

deposition is wholly consistent with the accounts given by

PW1, the mother-in-law and defacto complainant, and PW5,

the injured victim herself. Importantly, there is nothing in the

evidence to suggest any previous enmity between PW3 and

the accused that could have motivated her to give false

testimony. During cross-examination, no question was put to

PW3 regarding any purported animosity or prior disputes with

the appellant, further lending credibility to her statements.

Being an independent witness, her account carries substantial

weight and adds significant corroboration to the prosecution’s

case.

35. Regarding the offending weapon, PW7, the Investigating

Officer, deposed that the assault was committed with a ‘sabal’,

which is a pointed but not a sharp-cutting instrument. This

evidence is consistent with the medical observations regarding

the nature of the injury. PW4, Monoranjan Koley, also deposed

that in his presence, the police seized the sabal along with

blood-stained earth and blood-stained bamboo leaves from

17

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

the place of occurrence. He further stated that he put his

signature on the seizure list and identified the materials in

Court. Although PW4 mentioned in his cross-examination that

he signed the seizure list at the police station under the

instruction of a superior officer referred to as “Borobabu,” this

does not affect the credibility of the seizure itself. Additionally,

PW3, an independent witness, confirmed that she put her Left

Thumb Impression (L.T.I.) on the seizure list of the offending

weapon and other materials, providing independent

corroboration of the proper seizure procedure.

36. Upon careful appreciation of all the evidence, including the

oral testimonies and medical documents, particularly Exhibit-

3, it is evident that the appellant assaulted the victim with the

‘sabal’ (Material Exhibit-1). PW6, Dr. Sudakshina Bhar, opined

that the injury sustained by the victim was grievous in nature,

caused by the strike of a blunt, pointed instrument, consistent

with the ‘sabal’. There is no material on record to suggest that

the victim was not assaulted or that the accused was not

responsible for the act. The offending weapon was recovered,

produced before the Court, and properly marked as an exhibit,

and was identified in Court by PW1, PW3, and PW5.

37. In conclusion, the combined evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4,

PW5, PW6, and PW7 establishes beyond reasonable doubt that

18

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

the appellant assaulted the victim on the relevant date and

time with the ‘sabal’, resulting in grievous injuries. The

medical report (Exhibit-3) corroborates the ocular evidence,

confirming the grievous nature of the injury and linking it

directly to the assault by the accused. The prosecution’s case

regarding the assault is thus fully substantiated and reliable.

38. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned judgment and

order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court,

convicting the appellant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal

Code, is fully justified. There is no ground to interfere with the

finding of guilt, and the conviction is therefore sustained.

39. On a careful and comprehensive examination of the facts and

circumstances of the present case, it emerges that the

incident in question took place as far back as the year 2008,

and the appeal has remained pending before this Court since

the year 2010. The records further reveal that the appellant

was initially arrested on 29

th

July, 2008, and was subsequently

enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court on 12

th

August,

2008. Since then, the appellant has continued to remain on

bail without interruption. Significantly, there is nothing on

record to suggest that during this prolonged period the

appellant has indulged in any further criminal activity or

misused the liberty granted to him.

19

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

40. In this backdrop, it is of considerable relevance that nearly

seventeen years have elapsed since the date of occurrence,

and more than fifteen years have passed since the filing of the

present appeal. Such an inordinate delay in the final

adjudication of the appeal cannot be overlooked. It necessarily

invites the application of the well-recognized principle of

judicial leniency in sentencing on account of protracted delay.

The Court is, therefore, called upon to consider whether, at

this distant point of time, it would be just, fair, and proper to

direct the appellant to undergo the remaining part of the

substantive sentence.

41. It is a matter of judicial notice that the concept of justice is

not confined merely to the imposition of punishment but

extends to ensuring fairness, reasonableness, and timeliness

in the administration of criminal justice. The right to a speedy

trial is an integral and inseparable facet of the right to life and

personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. Any undue and unexplained delay in the

disposal of criminal proceedings, particularly when such delay

is not attributable to the accused, amounts to a violation of

this fundamental right.

42. The prolonged pendency of the appeal, coupled with the

mental agony, uncertainty, and social stigma endured by the

20

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

appellant over the years, are factors which cannot be ignored

while considering the question of sentence. The sword of

litigation hanging over the head of the appellant for such an

extended period itself operates as a form of punishment.

43. In such circumstances, the courts have consistently

recognized that undue delay in the conclusion of criminal

proceedings may constitute a valid ground for adopting a

lenient approach in the matter of sentencing. The judicial

discretion vested in appellate courts permits them to

appropriately mould the sentence so as to balance the ends of

justice. This may, in suitable cases, include reduction of the

substantive sentence of imprisonment or even substitution

thereof with a sentence of fine, particularly where the accused

has remained on bail for a long period without any adverse

conduct.

44. Therefore, having regard to the totality of circumstances,

including the long lapse of time since the occurrence, the

prolonged pendency of the appeal, the continuous compliance

of bail conditions by the appellant, and the absence of any

subsequent criminal conduct, it becomes a fit case where the

principle of leniency in sentencing deserves due consideration,

so as to advance the cause of substantive justice.

21

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

45. In the present case, there is no infirmity in the Trial Court’s

finding of guilt. The conviction of the appellant is affirmed.

However, in view of the exceptional delay spanning nearly

seventeen years I am inclined to modify the sentence. The

sentence of one year’s imprisonment awarded by the Trial

Court is reduced to the period already undergone by the

appellant. This adjustment recognizes the undue delay while

maintaining the conviction for the offence.

46. At the same time, to meet the ends of justice, the fine

imposed by the Trial Court, originally Rs. 500/-, is enhanced

to Rs. 10,000/-.

47. This approach aligns with the principles laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Pounammal v. State

Represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1784 , where at paragraph 9 the Apex Court

observed:

“The prolongation of a criminal case for an

unreasonable period is in itself a kind of suffering. It amounts

to mental incarceration for the person facing such

proceedings. For a person who is convicted and who has

appealed against his or her conviction and sentence and who

everyday awaits the fate of litigation, spends time in distress.

In the present-day system of administration of justice, in

22

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

which proceedings have often go on protracted unreasonably

and therefore unbearably, the passage of long time itself

makes the person suffer a mental agony.”

48. Dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction with

modification, the Apex Court ordered that-

“The sentence awarded to the appellant is accordingly

reduced to the actual undergone. At the same time the

imposition of fine is required to be increased. The appellant

shall be liable to pay fine of ₹25,000/- over and above

originally imposed.”

49. Accordingly, the present appellant is not required to undergo

any further jail sentence. However, he is directed to deposit

the enhanced fine of Rs. 10,000/- within three months from

today. In the event that the appellant has already paid Rs.

500/-, he shall be liable to deposit only the remaining Rs.

9,500/-. In default of the payment of fine the appellant shall

undergo imprisonment for two months.

50. In conclusion, the conviction of the appellant is affirmed, the

substantive jail sentence is set off to the period already

undergone, and the fine is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/- to ensure

justice is met. This approach balances the principles of

accountability for the offence with the equitable consideration

arising from the undue delay in the disposal of the appeal.

23

C.R.A. 497 of 2010

51. The appeal stands partly allowed.

52. The appellant is on bail, and his bail bond shall stand

cancelled.

53. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court record

be sent down to the Trial Court immediately.

54. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties on payment of requisite fees.

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)