Calcutta High Court acquits man accused of pouring hot oil on octogenarian woman

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday acquitted a man accused of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to an octogenarian woman by pouring hot oil on her head after an argument with her owing to pending dues [Sanjoy Mondal vs State of West Bengal]..Justice Rai Chattopadhyay, while acquitting the man, noted that the testimony of the victim-lady lacked confidence as she failed to point out certain facts related to the alleged incident. The judge acknowledged that courts can premise a conviction based on the victim's testimony by itself, without seeking any corroboration provided the evidence is unimpeachable. "But for that, the evidence on record should satisfy the cognition, by being unimpeachable, truthful and sufficient. All questions that may arise reasonably in the mind of a prudent man, must receive answer from the evidence that has been brought on record. Merely that the victim has spoken in the trial Court would not be sufficient and safe to rely on the same blind-folded as a foundation of his guilt," the bench observed.The quality of evidence, the bench emphasised, must inspire confidence in the mind of the trial judge for the court to rely solely on the victim’s evidence and not go for any other corroboration. The High Court, however, found that the evidence of the victim in this case did not inspire such confidence. "There are missing links existent pre-dominantly, raising strong doubt as regards reasonability for what the victim has stated the trial Court. The same could not have been relied on, in the same manner as it has been done, for the reason of its insufficiency, non-specificness and in coherence," the bench opined..The case pertained to an alleged incident that took place on the night of July 1, 2004, when the octogenarian mother of the complainant was preparing 'papads' to sell the same. However, when the appellant-accused requested some 'papads' and offered to pay the money later, the complainant refused to give the same. The complainant insisted that the appellant pay the pending dues first.With this, there was an argument and the appellant allegedly poured hot mustard oil on the complainant's mother causing grievous injuries to her.The bench examined the testimony of the doctor who treated the victim just after the incident and accepted the fact that the woman indeed suffered 36 percent burn injuries. The judge, however, noted that two independent witnesses, who were residents of the same village, were declared hostile as they said that the burn injuries were due to an accident. "Evidence of the victim however lacks sufficiency so far as the appellant’s specific and overt acts are concerned. She has stated that being infuriated due to her asking lack some old and outstanding dues, the appellant poured oil on her person. Unfortunately there are substantive lack clarity regarding the time, place and manner of the alleged occurrence," the bench opined.Unless the evidence of the prime witness is worthy enough to rely on without hesitation, a Court should restrain itself from placing reliance on it, the bench said."In absence of coherence and truthfulness in her statement, the Court has erred in relying on the same to found its judgment on the basis of her evidence. The finding of the trial Court that the appellant put out hot oil from the utensils being used by the victim and poured the same upon her person, has been only baseless and imaginary, in so far as none of the witnesses including the victim has specified the manner of incident," the bench held.With these observations, the Court acquitted the appellant..Advocate Somopriyo Chowdhury was served as Amicus Curiae and represented the appellant.Advocates Pravash Bhattacharyya and MFA Begg represented the State..[Read Judgment]