Calcutta High Court acquits two acid attack convicts; says conviction cannot be based on suspicion

Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot take the place of proof of guilt, observed the Calcutta High Court recently while acquitting two persons convicted by the trial court in an acid attack case [Jiten Barman v. The State of West Bengal]..A Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Ajay Kumar Gupta made the observation while overturning a 2015 trial court conviction in the case against two men. ."On the basis of suspicious circumstances, appellant cannot be held guilty. Suspicion, howsoever high, cannot take the place of proof of guilt. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and ought to be acquitted," the Court said. .The case dated back to 2013, when two girls aged about 18 years and 5 years old, who were the sister and daughter of the informant respectively, were attacked with acid in their house at night..Two men alleged to have had teased the informant's sister earlier were accused of the crime. As per the informant, her sister had turned down a marriage proposal from one of the accused. In retaliation, the accused allegedly threatened that he would make the girl's condition such that no one else would marry her and that human beings would be frightened by seeing her face, the informant had alleged..On account of this, her parents had stopped the informant's sister from going to school or on the road, and arranged for her marriage, the Court was further told. The informant claimed that the accused had thrown acid on her sister and daughter on coming to know of her sister's betrothal..The trial court's conviction in the matter was challenged by one of the accused before the High Court, who pleaded innocence in the case and contended that he had been falsely implicated. The appellant argued that none of the witnesses could explain how the accused could have entered the house at night when the incident took place. There were no eyewitnesses and the trial court had based its conviction on conjectures and surmises alone, the appellant submitted..The High Court noted that while the trial court had relied on the version of various witnesses to the case, most of the witnesses had turned hostile. "Even the family members of victims who were present at the place of occurrence did not support the case of the prosecution," the High Court found. .Since the case rested on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forth should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, the Court observed. However, in this case, the High Court found that contradictory versions of the incident, as well as hostile witnesses, marred the prosecution's case. ."I am fully convinced with the arguments of the learned Advocate though the victims suffered acid burn injuries but who is actual culprit is not brought on record by the prosecution," the Court concluded. .The Court further pointed out that the suspicions of the prosecution in the matter is not sufficient to incriminate the accused. "How appellant and his friend entered the room at night where the victims were sleeping and how they threw acid on them is not clear from the prosecution witnesses. Their suspicion or belief do not constitute proof," the Court said. .Therefore, the High Court acquitted the appellant. The benefit of this acquittal was also extended by the Court to the co-accused who had not challenged the trial court order. ."... he stands on the same footing with the appellant. Hence, in the interest of justice, he ought to be extended the same relief and acquitted of the charge levelled against him in view of the law declared in Sahadevan & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Md. Sajjad Vs. State of West Bengal." the Court observed..Advocate Amitabha Karmakar appeared for the appellant. The State was represented by Advocates Parthapratim Das and Manasi Roy..[Read Judgment]