Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akshoy Pal vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 June, 2025
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
AKSHOY PAL
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
For the Appellant : Mr. Sekhar Kr. Basu, Ld. Sr. Adv.
Mr. Antarikhya Basu, Advocate
Ms. Madhumita Basak, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, Advocate
Ms. Puja Goswami, Advocate
Heard and judgment on : June 18, 2025
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. Appeal is against the judgment of conviction dated January 10, 2023
and the order of sentence dated January 11, 2023 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Kandi,
Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 01(09) 2019 arising out of Sessions
Case No. 126 of 2019.
-2-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, learned trial Judge
convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned Single Judge imposed a sentence of life imprisonment as
against the appellant amongst others, by the impugned order of
sentence.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant applied under
Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to Section
432 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for permission
to adduce additional evidence. Such application was registered as
CRAN 2 of 2022.
5. With regard to CRAN 2 of 2022, learned senior advocate appearing
for the appellant submits that, four persons were charge sheeted.
Two were apprehended and faced trial along with the appellant.
Although, appellant was convicted, the other co-accused was
acquitted. The two other co-accuseds who did not face the trial along
with the appellant, were tried subsequently. He draws the attention
of the Court to the deposition of the same prosecution witnesses as
that of the present appellant, in the subsequent trial and submits
that, such prosecution witnesses acknowledged in cross-examination
-3-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
at the subsequent trial that neither of them were eye-witnesses and
witnessed the incident. He submits that, therefore, at the basic
minimum, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. That
apart, he submits that, the prosecution failed to prove the charges as
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, in the event, the
deposition of the same prosecution witnesses are taken into
consideration in the present appeal.
6. In support of his contention that, the appellant is entitled to apply
under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code corresponding to
Section 432 of the BNSS, 2023, learned senior advocate appearing
for the appellant relies upon AIR 1965 SC 1887 [Rajeswar Prasad
Misra vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.]
7. Referring to the merits of the appeal, learned senior advocate
appearing for the appellant submits that, the prosecution was unable
to establish the charges as against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. He draws the attention of the Court to the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses and, in particular to the deposition of the
Investigating Officer. He submits that the Investigating Officer in his
cross-examination stated that, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 did not
state to him while making their statements under Section 161 of the
-4-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
Criminal Procedure Code, that, they were eye-witnesses to the
incident. He submits that, therefore, no reliance should be placed on
the evidence of the prosecution to convict the appellant of murder
and of possession of illegal firearm.
8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the
firearm used in the incident of murder although was seized from
another co-accused, and sent for forensic examination, the same,
however, was not established to be used by the appellant at the trial.
9. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the evidence
in the second trial cannot be used for the purpose of adjudicating the
complicity of the appellant. The charges as against the appellant are
to be considered on the basis of the evidence led at the first trial. In
support of such contention she relies upon (2022) 14 SCC 392 [A.T
Mydeen & Anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Customs
Department]
10. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, the
prosecution was able to establish the charges as against the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. She draws the attention of the Court to
the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. According to her, the
prosecution examined P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 as eye-
-5-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
witnesses. She points out that, P.W. 7, corroborated the version of
P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 of the incident. She contends that, the
injuries sustained by the victim stands corroborated by the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses. The place of occurrence as well as the
time of occurrence were established at the trial. Therefore, according
to her, there was no ground for interference with the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
11. As noted above, there is an application for consideration of additional
evidence sought to be introduced by the appellant in the appeal.
Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to
Section 432 of the BNSS, 2023 permits additional evidence being
considered by the Appeal Court. Section 432 of the BNSS, 2023 is a
replica of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
which in turn is a replica of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1898.
12. Supreme Court considered Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1898 of which Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 is a replica in Rajeswar Prasad Misra (supra). It notes that,
Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 confers a wide
discretion to an Appeal Court to consider additional evidence or to
-6-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
order retrial and to order one or the other. It observed that the limit
of such discretion, is dictated by the exigency of the situation, fair
play and good sense. It noted that, additional evidence must be
necessary not because it would be impossible to pronounce judgment
but because there would be failure of justice without it. This power is
to be used sparingly and only in suitable cases. It should however be
not received so as to cause prejudice to the accused.
13. A.T. Mydeen (supra) held that an accused at a trial possesses the
right to be tried only on the basis of evidence recorded in his
presence and witness cross-examined by him. Evidence which was
recorded in his absence cannot be introduced in order to evaluate the
guilt of such accused at a trial.
14. In the facts of the present case, the appellant desires that the Appeal
Court considers evidence at the subsequent trial in which the
appellant was not involved, although, the second trial was in respect
of the same offence. In other words, appellant seeks to rely upon the
evidence of the prosecution introduced at a trial in respect of the
same offence in respect of other co-accused and in a trial which he
was not involved.
-7-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
15. A.T. Mydeen (supra), in consideration of the fact that a common
judgment was passed in two appeals based on two separate trials
and judgments over the same incidence, observed that, the High
Court ought to consider the evidence in both the trials in order to
decide the culpability of the accused persons.
16. A.T. Mydeen (supra) cannot be read or construed to be a
proposition that an accused cannot rely upon evidence which was not
recorded in his presence to assess the charges as against him. It
was not considered in the context of Section 341 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 scenario. To our understanding A.T. Mydeen
(supra) restricts the prosecution from putting forth any evidence as
against the accused which was not recorded in presence of such
accused for consideration of the Court. In other words, it is open to
an accused to invite the Court, to assess evidence which was not
recorded in presence of the accused, although at the same time, it
would prevent the prosecution from relying upon such evidence which
was not recorded in the presence of the accused, if the accused
objects to the introduction of such evidence.
17. In such circumstances, there appears no impediment in considering
the evidence of another trial specially when both the trials refer to
-8-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
the same incidence. Self same witnesses giving two different versions
over the same incidence in the two trials would give rise to a
reasonable doubt regarding the trustworthiness of such witness as
well as veracity of prosecution case, if it so transpires.
18. In the facts of the present case, the appellant is inviting the Appeal
Court to consider and evaluate evidence at a subsequent trial of a
criminal case emanating out of the same offence to adjudicate on the
charges as against the appellant.
19. Section 432 of the BNSS, 2023 which is a replica of Section 391 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 empowers the Appeal Court to
take further evidence or direct it to be taken. In an appeal, if the
Appeal Court is of the view that additional evidence is necessary, for
reasons to be recorded may take the evidence itself or direct it to be
taken.
20. An Appeal Court considering a request for additional evidence, is
required to return a finding that the evidence sought to be introduced
if not allowed to be introduced would result in failure of justice.
However, Appeal Court is required to be cautious and use such
powers sparingly and for adequate reasons.
-9-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
21. While allowing additional evidence to be taken either by itself or by
the appropriate Court, the Appeal Court must ensure that the
evidence allowed to be introduced in appeal, does not cause prejudice
to any of the parties.
22. In such context, we allow the application made by the appellant
under Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
corresponding to Section 432 of the BNSS, 2023.
23. The claim of the appellant that, the same prosecution witnesses
implicating the appellant at the trial, subsequently in the second trial
gave a version of the incident which exonerates the appellant. This
claim requires consideration. In the event such claim is substantiated
then the appellant would be entitled to acquittal. Non-consideration
of the evidence sought to introduced would, therefore, result in
failure in justice.
24. We, therefore, proceed to consider the evidence of the prosecution as
against the appellant both on the basis of the evidence led at the trial
in which the appellant was present as also on the basis of the
evidence of the prosecution at a trial of the same offence, as against
the co-accused in which the appellant was not present.
-10-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
25. In the trial as against the appellant, prosecution examined 9
witnesses. Prosecution Witness No.1 claims himself to be de facto
complainant and lodged the writing complaint. He introduced the
written complaint at the trial which was marked as Exhibit-1/1. He
stated in cross-examination that, on the date and time of the incident
while he was returning from Kandi to his house, he saw his injured
nephew lying on the road in a bleeding injured condition. He said
that, he along with Tarak Mondal and Nitya Gopal were returning
home from Kandi and that except them there was no other person
present. He stated in his cross-examination that he was at a distance
of about fifteen hands from the victim. He tried to save the victim.
He also stated that, he was there for ten to fifteen minutes at the
place of occurrence at the time of incident.
26. P.W. 2, Tarak Mondal, which P.W. 1 stated to be along with P.W. 1
when he found the victim in injured condition. P.W. 2 stated that, he
found the victim to sustain bomb injury. He, however, went home.
In cross-examination, he stated that, he heard a sound of firearm
and he found Sisir Pal, Sukhen Pal and Arun Ghosh to attack/assault
the victim. He saw the victim fall on the ground. After few moments,
-11-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
he tried to go near the victim but could not do so due to fire and
went home.
27. P.W. 3 is the cousin brother of the victim. He stated that the victim
died due to bomb blast injury and gunshot injury. He stated in
examination-in-chief that, Akshay Pal and his two sons Sisir Pal and
Sukhen Pal hurled bomb to the victim and also fired from their
firearms. He stated that Arun Mondal fired on the back side and right
side of the head of the deceased. He was cross-examined by the
defence.
28. P.W. 4 is the wife of the victim. She stated that, the murder was
committed with gunshot and bomb. She is, however, not an eye-
witness to the incident.
29. P.W. 5 is the cousin brother of the victim. He stated that, Akshay Pal
and his two sons namely, Sisir Pal, Sukhen Pal and Arun Ghosh
surrounded the victim and that Akshay Pal shot the victim on the
head and chest. Arun Ghosh hurled bomb from the back side. All the
accused fled away from the Southern side. He was also cross-
examined by the defence.
30. A Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as P.W. 6 at the trial. He was
instrumental in initiating the unnatural death case. He tendered the
-12-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
inquest report which was tender in evidence and marked as an
Exhibit.
31. The father-in-law of the victim deposed as P.W. 7. He stated that, he
was following the victim. He stated that, four persons shot at the
victim and hurled bomb upon the victim who died on the spot. He
identified Akshay Pal, Sukhen Pal, Sisir Pal and Arun Ghosh to be the
persons involved in the murder. In cross-examination, he stated
that, for the first time in Court he stated that he was following the
victim his scooter. He, however, acknowledged that he stated to the
police that the accused persons hurled bomb at the victim
32. The post mortem Doctor was examined as P.W. 8 at the trial. He
tendered the post mortem report in evidence which was marked as
Exhibit-5. In cross-examination he stated that he was a
gynaecologist.
33. Investigating Officer was examined as P.W. 9 at the trial. He
narrated about the course of investigation. In cross-examination, he
acknowledged that P.W. 7 did not make certain statement during his
examination under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He
also stated that P.W. 3 and 5 stated that it was their assumption that
Akshay and others murdered the victim.
-13-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
34. At the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant
was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code
where, he denied his complicity. He declined to adduce any
evidence.
35. As noted above, two of the accused stood trial subsequently. In the
subsequent trial, prosecution examined several witnesses. Common
witnesses examined between first trial and the second trial going by
the numerical number in the first trial are P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 7.
36. In the second trial, again, going by the numerical number ascribed to
the prosecution witnesses at the first trial, P.W. 1 stated that, he
could not write or read Bengali but can sign. He stated that, he
signed the written complaint after it was written and that he did not
know what was written in it. He stated that, he did not see the
incident and did not have any knowledge about the incident. He
stated that he heard various talks of the villagers about the incident
and hearing such incident, he deposed in the Court.
37. P.W. 3 was first trial was examined as P.W. 3 in the second trial. In
the cross-examination, he stated that, on hearing the sound of bomb
and hearing the news of the death of the victim, he went to the place
of occurrence. He also stated that he saw the accused Sisir Pal and
-14-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
Arun Ghosh at or near the place of occurrence when he reached
there.
38. P.W. 2 of the first trial was examined as P.W. 4 in the second trial.
He stated in his cross-examination that he did not know about the
involvement of the Sisir Pal and Arun Ghosh in the death of the
victim. He did not go to the place of occurrence and did not see
anything.
39. P.W. 4 in the first trial was examined as P.W. 5 in the second trial. In
cross-examination, he stated that, on hearing the news of the
incident from the public, he went to the place of occurrence. He also
stated that he did not see Arun Ghosh and Sisir Pal near the place of
occurrence when he reached there.
40. P.W.7 at the first trial deposed as P.W. 6 in the second trial. In
cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say who hurled the
bomb as he was in his house during the incident. He also stated in
cross-examination that in his earlier statement before the Court was
based upon hearsay knowledge from the people nearby.
41. At the first trial, prosecution witnesses 1, 3, 5 and 7 are stated to be
eye-witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the first trial were examined as
P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 6 respectively at the second trial. In cross-
-15-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
examination, in the second trial, all of them stated unequivocally that
they were not eye-witnesses to the incident and that they were not
present at the place of occurrence.
42. We find from the records that, the same set of prosecution witnesses
who claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses at the first trial, denied
being eye-witnesses at the second trial. In fact, the same set of
prosecution witnesses are giving two versions of the same incident,
at the trial relating to the same offence.
43. In our view, therefore, the benefit of doubt, if anything else should be
afforded to the appellant before us in view of the fact that, the
prosecution witnesses, who deposed as against him at the trial, gave
a different version at the second trial.
44. In view of the discussions above, we set aside the impugned
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, and acquit the
appellant.
45. Appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other police
case.
46. Appellant will, however, comply with Section 437A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 481 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 forthwith.
-16-
CRA (DB) 48 of 2023
With
IA NO: CRAN 2 of 2025
47. A copy of the judgment and order along with the Trial Court Records
be transmitted to the jurisdictional Court forthwith.
48. CRA (DB) 48 of 2023 and IA No.: CRAN 2 of 2025 are disposed of
accordingly.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
49. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
[Dd/Ad]