IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 1176 OF 2023

PALASH GUIN AND OTHERS

-VS-

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saptarshi Basu, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Aritra Bhattacharya, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Saikat Samanta, Ld. Adv.

Ms. Payel Khanra, Ld. Adv.

For the State : Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P.

Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Ld. Adv.

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Imtiaz Akhtar, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Badrul Karim, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Kiron Sk., Ld. Adv.

Reserved on : 25.08.2026

Pronounced on : 03.09.2026

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –

INTRODUCTION

1. When the sacred machinery of justice, set in motion by the highest

court of the state, is met with the raw fury of a localized mob, the

2

CRR 1176 OF 2023

boundary between civil administration and criminal law tragically

dissolves into chaos. This criminal revision petition brings to our

judicial threshold a deeply disturbing narrative of a court-mandated

land measurement that culminated in a human tragedy—the sudden

collapse and death of an elderly citizen amidst an aggressive melee. The

petitioners, who find themselves standing on the precipice of a Sessions

trial for murder, rioting, and criminal conspiracy, invoke the revisional

and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401

read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They

challenge the legal propriety of an order dated 21

st February, 2023

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amta, Howrah, which

steadfastly refused to grant them a summary exit through a discharge

application under Section 227 of the Code. As this Court embarks upon

a meticulous examination of the foundational records, the central

question is whether the cold letter of medical science regarding a

cardiovascular collapse can be weaponized at the threshold to eclipse a

brutal, mob-driven assault, or whether the collective conscience of the

law demands that the shadows of this incident be fully illuminated

through a rigorous, full-fledged trial.

FOUNDATIONAL FACTS

2. To comprehend the true genesis of this grim litigation, one must

journey back to a long-standing, bitter civil dispute over a piece of

Bastu land measuring approximately 12 decimals situated at Village

Gazipur Hattala, Mouza West Gazipur, P.S. Amta, District Howrah

(bearing JL No. 109 under LR Khatian No. 2682, corresponding to RS

3

CRR 1176 OF 2023

Dag No. 1661 and LR Dag No. 1707). The land originally belonged to the

predecessor of the Bhowmick family, late Becharam Bhowmick. Years

later, the deceased, Shyamal Bhowmick—an elderly, poorly nourished

man aged over 60—secured a housing grant under the Indira Awas

Yojana from the Gazipur Gram Panchayat to construct a dwelling hut

on this inherited property after his old mud-hut was damaged by

natural calamities. However, his immediate neighbors belonging to the

Dutta family vehemently obstructed the construction, challenging his

title and right of possession. This triggered a flurry of preemptive legal

maneuvers between 2015 and 2016, including cross-petitions under

Sections 144 and 107 of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Executive

Magistrate at Uluberia, which were eventually dropped on the premise

that the underlying issues were civil in nature. Frustrated by local

administrative non-cooperation and relentless threats from the

opposing faction—backed by military relative petitions and local

resistance—Shyamal Bhowmick and his brother Bimal Bhowmick

ultimately invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court by

filing Writ Petition No. 17285(W) of 2017.

3. On November 21, 2017, this Court passed a definitive order directing

the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Amta-II, to conduct a formal

spot demarcation of the disputed land and submit a compliance report

within three weeks. It was this court-ordered execution that set the

stage for the fatal confrontation. On December 12, 2017, at around

1:30 PM, a team of revenue officials arrived at the site near the Sasan

Kali Temple at Gajipur Hattala to execute the measurement. Crucially,

4

CRR 1176 OF 2023

the local police escort had temporarily moved away to monitor

surrounding perimeters. Sensing an opening, a hostile crowd

materialized at the spot. The gathering was allegedly spearheaded by

local Gram Panchayat Pradhan Soma Guin, her husband Palash Guin,

members of the Dutta family (including Rintu Dutta, Pintu Dutta,

Ashok Dutta, Tarun Dutta, and various female relatives), alongside

local associates like Jayanta Bhattacharya, Pradyut Chatterjee, and

Ajibar Mallick. According to the written complaint lodged by Sukanta

Bhowmick with the Officer-in-Charge of Amta Police Station (registered

as Amta P.S. Case No. 543/2017 dated December 12, 2017), the mob

aggressively confronted the survey team, questioning why the

Panchayat Pradhan’s name was involved in the demarcation. When

administrative officers requested calm, the accused completely ignored

them. The situation rapidly deteriorated into targeted violence. The mob

hurled filthy abuses, issued death threats, and physically lunged at the

Bhowmick family. During the melee, the elderly victim, Shyamal

Bhowmick, was brutally assaulted with heavy kicks, fists, and blows

directed at his chest and abdomen by Palash Guin and his associates.

Female members of the Bhowmick family were simultaneously attacked,

and their modesty was outraged and their garments were torn during

the scuffle. When Shyamal collapsed to the ground, semi-conscious and

struggling for breath, the accused allegedly blocked neighbors and

relatives from shifting him to safety. He was eventually rushed to Amta

Rural Hospital, where the attending Medical Officer pronounced him

brought dead. Following a comprehensive investigation—subsequently

5

CRR 1176 OF 2023

assumed by the CID (WB) and Howrah DD, the investigating agency

gathered extensive material, including eyewitness statements, Section

164 statements from female members of the Bhowmick family and

independent locals, a seized mobile phone containing a digital video clip

of the merciless beating, and an expert medical board opinion from

SSKM Hospital (supervised by Dr. B.N. Kahali) which concluded that

the death was a sudden cardiovascular collapse precipitated by physical

trauma. On January 28, 2019, the police submitted a comprehensive

chargesheet (Charge Sheet No. 22/19) against 13 named accused

persons under Sections 147, 149, 323, 354B, 302, and 120B of the

Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions

and renumbered as Sessions Trial Case No. 75 of 2019. On January 4,

2023, the accused petitioners filed an application for discharge under

Section 227 of the Code before the Additional Sessions Judge at Amta,

Howrah, seeking an ouster of the prosecution on medical and

evidentiary grounds. By Order No. 16 dated February 21, 2023, the trial

court dismissed the discharge application, leading directly to the filing

of the instant revisional challenge.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has passionately argued

that the impugned order suffers from a complete non-application of

judicial mind. The primary plank of the petitioners' argument rests on

the medical evidence. It is contended that the post-mortem report and

the subsequent opinion of the expert medical board from SSKM

6

CRR 1176 OF 2023

Hospital clearly state that the cause of death was a "diseased condition

of the heart and pericardium" (a natural cardiovascular cause). Ld.

Counsel submits that the deceased sustained no major injuries on vital

areas such as the chest pericardial zone, neck, abdomen, or scrotum.

Therefore, the basic ingredient of Section 302 IPC namely, a homicidal

death directly caused by an intentional fatal injury, is completely

absent.

5. Furthermore, it is argued that the statements of independent

administrative witnesses (the Revenue Officer and Revenue Inspector)

reveal they only heard about the assault second-hand from one Bimal

Bhowmick without naming the petitioners at the spot, sharply

contradicting the "exaggerated" accounts of interested family members.

Lastly, it is argued that the auxiliary charge under Section 354B IPC is

groundless because no torn wearing apparels were ever seized by the

investigating agency.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE AND OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor-in-Charge appearing on

behalf of the State of West Bengal, ably assisted by the learned counsel

for the de facto complainant (Opposite Party No. 2), vehemently opposes

the revisional application and supports the legality, soundness, and

correctness of the trial court's order dated February 21, 2023. The core

submissions urged on behalf of the opposite parties are structured

around the fulfillment of a prima facie case and the bar on mini-trials.

The State contends that the trial court acted well within its legal

jurisdiction by refusing to discharge the petitioners. Relying upon the

7

CRR 1176 OF 2023

classic legal principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of

Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1997) 4 SCC 39] and Dilawar Balu Kurane v.

State of Maharashtra ((2002) 2 SCC 135), the opposite parties argue

that at the threshold stage of framing charges under Section 228 of the

Code, the court is not required to meticulously weigh the evidence,

judge the ultimate truth or veracity of witness statements, or conduct a

premature mini-trial. As long as the case diary materials and

chargesheet disclosures generate a strong prima facie case or grave

suspicion against the accused, the court is fully justified in rejecting a

discharge plea and proceeding to trial.

7. Addressing the defence's heavy reliance on the medical board's opinion

regarding causation of the death of Shyamal Bhowmick, the

prosecution points out a critical nuance that the petitioners

conveniently ignore. While the primary mode of death was a

cardiovascular collapse due to a pre-existing heart condition, the expert

board of SSKM Hospital explicitly opined that the possibility of sudden

cardiac arrest due to vagal stimulation resulting from being kicked on

the scrotum or abdomen, or hit by a fist or blow over the pericardial

area of the chest or neck, causing a sudden rise of blood pressure in a

patient already having a diseased condition of the heart, leading to

cardiac arrest cannot be ruled out. The State argues that in criminal

jurisprudence, a tortfeasor or assailant must take their victim as they

find them. The physical thrashing, kicks, and blows administered by an

aggressive mob of trespassers to an elderly, frail man immediately

triggered his fatal collapse during a high-stress confrontation. Whether

8

CRR 1176 OF 2023

this act constitutes murder under Section 302 of the Code or culpable

homicide not amounting to murder is a mixed question of fact and law

that can only be resolved after recording full evidence during a trial,

and cannot be prematurely truncated at the threshold. Furthermore,

the opposite parties emphasize that the incident was not a spontaneous

scuffle, but a calculated, premeditated resistance orchestrated to

subvert a lawful execution of a court-mandated land demarcation. The

presence of local political influence created an intimidating atmosphere

where administrative officials were ignored and the Bhowmick family

was brutally targeted. The case diary contains consistent eyewitness

testimonies, Section 164 statements, and crucial digital evidence, which

collectively establish the active unlawful assembly, common object, and

criminal conspiracy. Finally, the State argues that minor discrepancies

in witness statements, delays in recording police statements, or the

non-recovery of torn garments for the charge of Section 354B IPC are

evidentiary matters to be tested through cross-examination during trial,

and consequently pray for the outright dismissal of this revisional

application and the vacation of any interim stays.

QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION

8. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the rival submissions advanced by

the learned counsel for the respective parties, the pleadings, the

statutory provisions, and the foundational records, three pivotal

questions fall for the determination of this Court:

9

CRR 1176 OF 2023

i. whether the learned trial court committed any patent illegality,

jurisdictional error, or perversity in holding that a meticulous

sifting of medical opinions and witness statements for the

purpose of discharging the accused would amount to

conducting an impermissible mini-trial at the threshold stage of

framing charges;

ii. whether the expert medical board's opinion constitutes a

complete absence of prima facie grounds to sustain a charge

under Section 302 or 304 of the Indian Penal Code, or whether

the nexus between the physical assault and the fatal collapse is

a matter exclusively reserved for trial; and

iii. whether the material collected during investigation discloses

sufficient grave suspicion to warrant putting the petitioners on

trial under Sections 147, 149, 323, 354B, 302, and 120B of the

Indian Penal Code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ON QUESTION NO. (I) (SCOPE AND

THRESHOLD OF SECTION 227 CRPC):

9. To resolve the first and foundational question as formulated above, this

court must examine the precise statutory contours and judicial

philosophy governing Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The statutory scheme dictates that if, upon consideration of the record

of the case and the documents submitted thereunder, the judge

considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, they shall

discharge the accused. However, jurisprudence across successive

10

CRR 1176 OF 2023

landmark judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has firmly

established that "groundless" does not mean a test of absolute proof,

infallible certainty, or a premature trial on merits.

10. The parameters of this judicial exercise were authoritatively laid down

by the Apex Court in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra

Bhimraj Bijjaya & Ors. [(1990) 4 SCC 76)], wherein it was held that

while a judge has the undoubted power to sift and weigh evidence for

the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case or grave

suspicion has been made out, the judge cannot act merely as a post

office. Yet, this screening process does not permit a roving inquiry into

the pros and cons of the matter or a meticulous weighing and testing of

witness veracity as if conducting a full-fledged trial.

11. This principle was further reinforced in Ramesh Singh (supra) where the

Supreme Court observed that:

"Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the

prosecution the Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against

the accused and state by what evidence he proposes to prove the

guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial stage the duty

of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents

submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused

and the prosecution in that behalf... At this stage, as was pointed

out by this Court... the truth, veracity and the effect of the

evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be

meticulously judged."

Similarly, in Dilawar Balu Kurane (supra), the Apex Court reiterated

that if the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion

against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court

11

CRR 1176 OF 2023

is fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with trial.

Crucially, if two views are equally possible and the evidence gives rise

to some suspicion but not grave suspicion, the accused may be

discharged; but where the record yells for a trial, a summary ouster is

impermissible.

12. Applying these settled legal touchstones to the facts of the present case,

the petitioners' primary grievance is that the trial court erroneously

brushed aside their detailed medical and evidentiary arguments by

invoking the bar against "mini-trials." However, a careful perusal of the

trial court's order reveals that the learned Additional Sessions Judge

precisely adhered to the mandate of Niranjan Singh and Ramesh Singh.

The defence sought to utilize complex medical board reports, analyse

the nuances of cardiovascular failure versus traumatic shock, and

highlight minor discrepancies between independent revenue officers

and family witnesses, tasks that inherently require cross-examination,

expert examination, and the testing of evidence. To accept the

petitioners' contentions at this nascent stage would have required the

trial court to step into the arena of a mini-trial, weigh conflicting

probabilities, and adjudge the ultimate success of the prosecution.

13. Therefore, this Court holds that the learned trial court committed no

illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity in refusing to engage in a

premature, microscopic evaluation of the evidence. The trial judge

correctly recognized that the materials in the case diary crossed the

threshold of mere suspicion and generated a strong, unshakeable prima

12

CRR 1176 OF 2023

facie case, thereby justifying the rejection of the discharge application

under Section 227 CrPC.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ON QUESTION NO. (II)

(EVALUATION OF CAUSATION AND THE MEDICAL BOARD

OPINION):

14. Proceeding to the second pivotal question, whether the expert medical

board's opinion, which attributed the primary mode of death to a

"diseased condition of the heart and pericardium" while simultaneously

not ruling out sudden cardiac arrest induced by physical trauma (vagal

stimulation), constitutes a complete absence of prima facie grounds to

sustain a charge under Section 302/304 IPC, or whether the nexus

between the physical assault and the fatal collapse is a matter

exclusively reserved for trial, this court must analyse the interplay

between medical science and criminal culpability.

15. The defence has placed extraordinary emphasis on the post-mortem

report and the subsequent opinion of the expert Medical Board from

SSKM Hospital, arguing that because the deceased suffered no major

traumatic ruptures over the chest pericardial zone, neck, or scrotum,

the essential ingredients of a homicidal death under Section 302 IPC

are entirely absent. However, a meticulous reading of that very expert

opinion reveals a critical caveat that dismantles the petitioners'

summary argument: the medical board categorically opined that

"the possibility of sudden cardiac arrest due to vagal stimulation

(resulting from being kicked on the scrotum, abdomen or hit by

fist, blow over the pericardial area of chest or on neck), causing

sudden rise of blood pressure in a patient already having

13

CRR 1176 OF 2023

diseased condition of heart leading to cardiac arrest cannot be

ruled out."

16. In criminal jurisprudence, it is a foundational principle that an

assailant must take their victim as they find them. The law does not

grant immunity to an aggressor merely because the victim possessed a

pre-existing vulnerability or a diseased organ. When a frail, elderly

individual is subjected to a violent, aggressive physical assault by an

unruly mob during a high-stakes confrontation over land demarcation,

the direct physiological nexus between the physical trauma

administered and the immediate fatal cardiac collapse becomes a

crucial question of fact. Whether the collective acts of the petitioners

amount to murder under Section 302 IPC, culpable homicide not

amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, or simple hurt under

Section 323 IPC depends entirely on the intention, knowledge, and

degree of force established through the examination and cross-

examination of medical and eyewitnesses during a full-fledged trial.

17. Therefore, answering this question, I hold that the medical board's

opinion does not exonerate the petitioners at the threshold; rather, it

opens a triable window regarding the causal link between the physical

assault and the sudden cardiac death. The evaluation of this nexus, the

exact nature of the blows struck, and the requisite criminal intent

cannot be prematurely arbitrated through a discharge application

under Section 227 CrPC, but must be subjected to the rigorous crucible

of a full-fledged trial.

14

CRR 1176 OF 2023

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ON QUESTION NO. (III)

(SUFFICIENCY OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS IN THE CASE

DIARY):

18. Addressing the third and final question, whether the material collected

during investigation (including eyewitness accounts, Section 164 CrPC

statements, digital video evidence of the melee, and the context of

obstructing a High Court-mandated land survey) discloses sufficient

grave suspicion to warrant putting the petitioners on trial under

Sections 147, 149, 323, 354B, 302, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,

I must evaluate the totality of the record compiled by the investigating

agency.

19. The petitioners have strenuously argued that minor discrepancies, a

five-month delay in recording the statements of vital witnesses,

contradictory accounts between interested family members and

independent administrative officials (the Revenue Officer and Revenue

Inspector, CSW Nos. 17 and 18), and the alleged non-recovery of torn

wearing apparels render the prosecution's case fundamentally infirm.

They further contend that certain petitioners were not even present at

the scene. However, it is well-settled that at the stage of framing

charges, a court cannot act as a fact-finding authority or weigh the

credibility of witness testimonies. Discrepancies, delays, and questions

of alibi or presence are quintessential matters of defence that must be

tested through rigorous cross-examination during a trial, not utilized as

grounds to truncate a prosecution prematurely.

15

CRR 1176 OF 2023

20. A holistic perusal of the case diary reveals a compelling tapestry of

incriminating materials. The investigation uncovered consistent

eyewitness testimonies, judicial statements recorded under Section 164

CrPC by female family members, and crucial digital evidence in the

form of a mobile phone video clip capturing the active assault during

the chaotic confrontation. The backdrop of the incident, a premeditated

resistance orchestrated by local political influence to subvert a lawful

administrative survey mandated by the Hon'ble High Court, establishes

a strong prima facie foundation of an unlawful assembly sharing a

common object. The collective acts of the mob, the targeted physical

violence against the elderly victim, and the resulting tragedy collectively

generate much more than a mild suspicion; they give rise to grave

suspicion pointing directly toward the complicity of the petitioners.

21. Therefore, answering this question, I hold that the materials collected in

the case diary are more than sufficient to sustain the charges framed by

the prosecution. The trial court was fully justified in concluding that

the record warrants a full-fledged trial rather than a summary

discharge.

22. In light of the foregoing discussions, this Court finds no patent

illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated

February 21, 2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Amta, Howrah, in Sessions Trial Case No. 75 of 2019. The learned trial

judge rightly exercised discretion by refusing to conduct a mini-trial at

the threshold stage of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

23. Accordingly, CRR No. 1176 of 2023 stands dismissed .

16

CRR 1176 OF 2023

24. Any interim order of stay passed earlier stands vacated.

25. The learned trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously with the

framing of charges and conduct the trial in accordance with law,

uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

26. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the learned trial court

forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

27. There shall be no order as to costs.

28. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State.

29. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Uday Kumar, J.)