Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DAILYLAW 1075 (CAL)

AINUL HAQUE@ALINA SK v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

CRA/460/2017 · 2026-09-15

Prasenjit Biswas

body2017

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Form J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction ------------- Present : The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas C.R.A. 460 of 2017 Ainul Haque @ Alina Sk. Vs. The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta Mr. Parvej Anam Ms. Rituparna Ghosh Mr. Sourav Sardar For the State : Dr. Achin Jana Mr. Lokesh Sharma Heard on : 15.09.2026 Judgment On : 15.09.2026 Prasenjit Biswas, J. (In Court:-) 1. The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 12.06.2017 and the order of sentence dated 16.06.2017, passed C.R.A. 460 of 2017 2 by the learned Trial Court in connection with Sessions Trial No. 08(01)/2017, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 568 of 2016, have been assailed in the present appeal at the instance of the appellant. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 341/354 of the Indian Penal Code and, by the subsequent order of sentence, directed him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, essentially questioning the legality and propriety of the conviction as well as the manner in which the learned Trial Court appreciated the evidence available on record. 3. In brief, the prosecution case, as emerging from the materials on record, may be delineated as follows- “The victim lodged a written complaint before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, invoking the provision of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said complaint, it was alleged, inter alia, that on 15.06.2015 at about 9.00 a.m., while the victim was returning to her home after selling milk, she C.R.A. 460 of 2017 3 reached near a jute field. According to the prosecution, she intended to pluck some jute leaves or herbs from the field of the accused. At the time when she was allegedly plucking the jute leaves, the appellant/accused caught hold of her and touched different parts of her body, allegedly taking advantage of the fact that she was alone at the place of occurrence. It was further alleged that the appellant attempted to commit rape upon the victim. The victim allegedly raised an alarm and started crying loudly. According to the written complaint, owing to such cries, local persons assembled at the place of occurrence, as a result of which the appellant could not accomplish the alleged attempt to commit rape. The written complaint further stated that, thereafter, a village salish was convened in connection with the incident. It was alleged that the accused did not appear before the said salish. The victim also claimed that she informed the local Police Station as well as the Superintendent of Police, Malda, regarding the alleged incident, but no effective action was taken thereupon. According to the complainant, it was under such circumstances that she was compelled to approach the Court of the C.R.A. 460 of 2017 4 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 4. Pursuant to such complaint and the order passed thereon, the criminal law was set in motion. On the basis of the complaint, Malda Police Station Case No. 320 of 2015 dated 06.08.2015 was registered against the accused, Ainul Haque @ Alina Sk., under Sections 341/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 341/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges against the accused under Sections 341/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. The substance of the charges was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and also brought documentary evidence on record by way of exhibits. On the other hand, the defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence and confined its case to the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses and the materials elicited from them. 7. Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, at the very outset, has challenged the legality of the C.R.A. 460 of 2017 5 charge framed by the learned Trial Court. According to the learned Advocate, the charge framed against the accused does not satisfy the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that a charge in a criminal proceeding is not a mere formality, but is intended to give the accused clear and precise notice of the accusation which he is required to meet during the trial. According to the appellant, any material defect in the framing of charge, particularly one which causes prejudice to the accused in understanding or defending the accusation, assumes considerable significance. 8. Learned Advocate for the appellant has contended that the procedure contemplated for approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not duly followed or complied with in the present case. It is argued that the Magistrate, while entertaining an application invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is required to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with the statutory safeguards governing such applications. According to the appellant, non-compliance with the requisite procedure renders the initiation of the proceeding legally defective. 9. In support of such contention, learned Advocate has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639, particularly paragraph 24 C.R.A. 460 of 2017 6 thereof. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Parameswar Ghoshal & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in (2018) 1 C.Cr.LR (Cal) 333. According to the learned Advocate, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions have a direct bearing upon the manner in which the proceeding in the present case was initiated. 10.On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is argued that the initiation of the criminal proceeding at the instance of the complainant/victim was itself legally defective and that the mandatory procedural safeguards were not complied with. It is therefore submitted that the subsequent investigation and trial cannot be sustained in the manner in which they have proceeded, particularly when the foundational procedure for setting the criminal law in motion is itself under challenge. 11.Mr. Dutta Gupta, learned Advocate for the appellant has also assailed the impugned judgment on the ground of improper appreciation of evidence. According to him, there are material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, which affect the credibility of the prosecution case on material particulars. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly consider such discrepancies and proceeded to record the finding of guilt without examining whether the evidence, taken as a whole, established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 7 12.A further and substantial submission advanced on behalf of the appellant relates to the ultimate finding of guilt under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate points out that the charge framed by the learned Trial Court was under Sections 341/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. However, notwithstanding the nature of the charge which the accused was called upon to meet, the learned Trial Court ultimately convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the impugned judgment does not contain adequate or legally sustainable reasons explaining how, upon the evidence adduced at the trial, the ingredients of Section 354 IPC were established against the appellant. 13.It is further argued that, even on merits, the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 354 IPC have not been satisfactorily established from the evidence on record. Learned Advocate submits that the prosecution was required to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, the necessary factual circumstances constituting the offence, including the requisite act and the circumstances in which it was allegedly committed. According to the appellant, the evidence led by the prosecution falls short of that standard and the learned Trial Court has drawn conclusions which are not adequately supported by the evidence. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 8 14.The learned Advocate has also emphasised that, apart from the testimony of P.W.3, who is the prosecutrix/victim, there is no direct evidence supporting the allegation of the actual commission of the offence. It is submitted that although the prosecution examined other witnesses, their evidence does not provide the necessary corroboration regarding the material aspects of the alleged occurrence. According to the appellant, the other witnesses either arrived subsequently or have no direct knowledge of the alleged incident and, therefore, their evidence cannot be treated as substantive corroboration of the alleged act. 15.Particular emphasis has been laid upon the deposition of P.W.3. Mr. Dutta Gupta, learned Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions of her testimony and submitted that the version given by her before the learned Trial Court is not entirely consistent with the allegations contained in the written complaint. It is argued that the discrepancies are not confined merely to peripheral details but relate to material aspects of the occurrence and, consequently, affect the reliability of her testimony. 16.It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 is also not in conformity with the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. According to the learned Advocate, when the deposition of the prosecutrix is examined alongside the evidence of the other witnesses, material inconsistencies become C.R.A. 460 of 2017 9 apparent regarding the circumstances in which the alleged occurrence took place, the presence of persons at or near the place of occurrence and the subsequent events. Such inconsistencies, according to the appellant, assume significance because the prosecution has sought to establish the case substantially on the basis of the testimony of the victim. 17.It is accordingly submitted that the cumulative effect of the procedural irregularities, the alleged defect in the framing of charge, the manner in which the proceeding under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was initiated, the contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence, the discrepancies between the written complaint and the deposition of P.W.3, and the absence of convincing evidence establishing the ingredients of Section 354 IPC, creates a serious doubt regarding the correctness of the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court. 18.The learned Advocate therefore submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Court fell into error in recording the conviction. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2017 and the order of sentence dated 16.06.2017 be set aside and that the appellant be acquitted of the charge by allowing the present appeal. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 10 19.Per contra, Dr. Achin Jana, the learned Advocate appearing for the State has strongly opposed the present appeal and submitted that there is no material infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction which would justify interference by this Court. According to the learned Advocate, the learned Trial Court, upon proper appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has rightly arrived at the conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant and the findings recorded therein do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material misappreciation of evidence. 20.It is submitted on behalf of the State that the defence has completely failed to put forward any specific, probable or consistent case to explain the circumstances appearing against the appellant. The accused did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence and merely denied the allegations levelled against him. According to the learned Advocate, a mere denial of the prosecution case cannot, by itself, be treated as a substantive defence or be sufficient to discredit otherwise reliable prosecution evidence. It is contended that the absence of a positive defence, coupled with the evidence adduced by the prosecution, lends further support to the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court. 21.Dr. Jana, learned Advocate for the State has particularly relied upon the testimony of P.W.3, the victim/prosecutrix, who is the principal witness to the occurrence. According to the learned C.R.A. 460 of 2017 11 Advocate, there is nothing material in the deposition of P.W.3 which would justify a conclusion that the appellant was not involved in the alleged occurrence. On the contrary, P.W.3 has narrated the material facts relating to the incident and has specifically attributed the alleged acts to the appellant. Her testimony, according to the State, remains substantially consistent with the prosecution case as set out in the written complaint. 22.It is further submitted that the written complaint lodged by the victim has been duly brought on record and marked as an exhibit during the trial. According to the learned Advocate, the contents of the written complaint substantially corroborate the version subsequently given by P.W.3 in her deposition before the learned Trial Court. The learned Advocate therefore contends that the testimony of P.W.3 cannot be discarded merely because certain discrepancies or variations may have emerged during the course of her evidence, particularly when the core of her allegation against the appellant remains intact. 23.The learned Advocate for the State has further submitted that nothing significant has emerged from the cross-examination of P.W.3 which would render her testimony inherently unreliable or unworthy of acceptance. It is argued that the cross-examination has not succeeded in bringing out any material contradiction or circumstance which would demonstrate that the victim had falsely implicated the appellant or that she had any reason to C.R.A. 460 of 2017 12 give an incorrect account of the alleged occurrence. According to the State, the testimony of the victim, when considered in its entirety, remains sufficiently reliable and provides a proper foundation for the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court. 24.The learned Advocate has also placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W.5, a local villager, contending that his testimony provides corroboration to the material aspects of the evidence of P.W.3. According to the State, the evidence of P.W.5 supports the prosecution version regarding the circumstances in which the occurrence took place and the involvement of the appellant. It is therefore argued that the testimony of P.W.3 does not stand in isolation and that there is supporting evidence available on record which lends assurance to her version. 25.The evidence of P.W.2 has also been relied upon by the learned Advocate for the State. It is submitted that P.W.2, being the father of the victim, has supported the prosecution case and has deposed regarding the occurrence and the circumstances disclosed to him. According to the learned Advocate, the evidence of P.W.2, when read along with the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5, demonstrates consistency on the material aspects of the prosecution case and substantially corroborates the allegation made against the appellant. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 13 26.It is further submitted that the alleged discrepancies highlighted by the appellant are not of such a nature as to demolish the prosecution case in its entirety. According to the learned Advocate, minor discrepancies, variations or omissions which may occur in the deposition of witnesses after a lapse of time are not necessarily sufficient to discard their evidence, provided that the essential features of the prosecution case remain consistent. The learned Advocate accordingly submits that the evidence on record should be appreciated as a whole and not by isolating individual statements or portions of the depositions. 27.The learned Advocate for the State has also specifically addressed the submission concerning the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was duly recorded in accordance with the statutory requirement and that the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused from the prosecution evidence were duly put to him for his explanation. According to the State, there was no material defect in the manner in which the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was conducted so as to cause any prejudice to the appellant. 28.The learned Advocate for the State has specifically submitted that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code have been established through the evidences adduced during trial. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 14 According to him, the testimony of the victim regarding the conduct and acts allegedly committed by the appellant, read with the corroborative circumstances appearing from the evidence of the other witnesses, sufficiently establishes the ingredients of the said offence. The learned Trial Court, therefore, according to the State, committed no error in arriving at the finding that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC. 29.In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned Advocate for the State has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Major Singh, reported in AIR 1967 SC 63, and has submitted that the principles governing offences against women and the appreciation of evidence in such cases have to be considered keeping in view the nature and circumstances of the occurrence. 30.It is thus the submission of the learned Advocate for the State that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge against the appellant on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence. According to him, the learned Trial Court has considered the evidence in its proper perspective and has arrived at a conclusion which is supported by the materials available on record. No perversity, illegality or material irregularity, according to the State, has been demonstrated by the appellant which would warrant appellate interference with the finding of conviction. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 15 31.I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record. Upon such consideration, the principal question which falls for determination is whether the prosecution evidence is of such quality and consistency as would safely sustain the conviction of the appellant. 32.P.W.3 is the victim of the alleged occurrence and is undoubtedly the star witness of the prosecution. There can be no quarrel with the settled proposition that, in an appropriate case, a conviction may be based upon the sole testimony of the victim of an offence against a woman, provided that such testimony is found to be wholly reliable, cogent and trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. The requirement of corroboration is not an inflexible rule of law. At the same time, where the testimony of the victim suffers from material contradictions, omissions or improvements on material particulars, the Court is required to scrutinise such evidence with greater care before relying upon it as the foundation of a conviction. 33.In the present case, according to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 15.06.2015 at about 9.00 a.m., when the victim was returning home after selling milk and went near the jute field of the accused for the purpose of plucking jute leaves or herbs. It is alleged that the accused took advantage of her being alone, caught hold of her, touched different parts of her body C.R.A. 460 of 2017 16 and attempted to commit rape upon her. It is further the prosecution case that the victim raised an alarm and that local persons thereafter arrived at the place of occurrence, as a consequence whereof the accused could not complete the alleged attempt. 34.However, a material circumstance which emerges from the record is the delay in lodging the complaint. Though the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 15.06.2015, the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was lodged only on 06.07.2015. The delay, by itself, would not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution, particularly in a case involving an offence against a woman, if the delay is satisfactorily explained. In the present case, however, the explanation furnished by the victim requires examination in the light of the other evidences on record. 35.The victim stated that immediately after the occurrence she informed the local Police Station as well as the Superintendent of Police of the district, but no effective action was taken and, consequently, she was compelled to approach the learned Magistrate. If such assertion is to be accepted, the record would reasonably be expected to contain some material indicating the prior approaches allegedly made to the Police Station and to the Superintendent of Police. Significantly, no such material has been brought on record in support of that assertion. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 17 36.The discrepancy becomes more significant from the evidence of P.W.2, Mustaq Ali, the father of the victim. During cross- examination, P.W.2 stated that he had informed the incident only to the concerned Police Station. Such statement is inconsistent with the version contained in the written complaint, wherein it was specifically stated that the incident had been reported both to the concerned Police Station and to the Superintendent of Police, Malda. Thus, there is an inconsistency regarding a material circumstance concerning the immediate aftermath of the alleged occurrence. 37.The evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.6, also assumes considerable importance in this regard. P.W.6 stated that P.W.2 had not disclosed to him the circumstances relating to the accused allegedly asking the victim to enter the jute field and collect herbs, nor had he stated that, on hearing the cries of the victim, villagers came to know about the occurrence and apprehended the accused and detained him in a club. Those facts, therefore, appear to have been introduced by P.W.2 for the first time during his deposition before the learned Trial Court. Such material improvements require cautious consideration, particularly when they relate to the circumstances immediately surrounding the alleged occurrence. 38.The testimony of P.W.1 also requires scrutiny. P.W.1 stated that while the victim was proceeding towards the land of the accused for collecting herbs, the accused caught hold of her and C.R.A. 460 of 2017 18 attempted to commit rape upon her and touched different parts of her body. However, in cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that the distance between Rahutgram and his village was about 5/6 kilometres. This naturally raises a question as to the source of his knowledge regarding the alleged occurrence. More importantly, P.W.6, the Investigating Officer, stated that P.W.1 had not disclosed during investigation from whom he had learnt about the incident or the circumstances in which he came to know that the accused had allegedly caught hold of the victim and attempted to rape her. Thus, material portions of his subsequent testimony before the learned Trial Court were not found in his earlier statement. 39.The evidence of P.W.5 does not materially improve the prosecution case. P.W.5 stated that after the victim went to the field of the accused for collecting herbs, the accused asked her to enter the field and thereafter attempted to rape her. He further stated that the victim managed to escape and the villagers subsequently apprehended the accused. However, during cross-examination, P.W.5 admitted that he had heard about the incident. His testimony, therefore, is not direct evidence of the actual occurrence but is substantially hearsay in nature. Moreover, P.W.5 admitted that the victim was the wife of his cousin brother. Though such relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to discard his evidence, in the backdrop of the other inconsistencies appearing in the prosecution case, the same is C.R.A. 460 of 2017 19 certainly a circumstance which calls for cautious appreciation of his testimony. 40.There is another material discrepancy concerning the alleged apprehension of the accused by the local villagers. P.W.3 stated before the learned Trial Court that, after hearing her cries, the villagers rushed to the place of occurrence, apprehended the accused and detained him in a school room. However, P.W.6, the Investigating Officer, stated that the victim had not made any such statement before him during investigation. Thus, the alleged apprehension and detention of the accused by the villagers was introduced by P.W.3 for the first time during her evidence before the learned Trial Court. Since this circumstance forms an important part of the prosecution narrative explaining how the alleged attempt came to an end, the discrepancy cannot be treated as wholly inconsequential. 41.The prosecution has also failed to place on record any documentary material establishing that the land where the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place belonged to or was under the possession of the accused. Although the victim and the other prosecution witnesses have described the place as the land of the accused, the prosecution has not satisfactorily established the precise identity of the place of occurrence or its connection with the accused. In a case where the place of occurrence is itself an important circumstance in the prosecution C.R.A. 460 of 2017 20 narrative, failure to establish such foundational fact assumes significance. 42.I have also considered the submission concerning the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The purpose of an examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to afford the accused a fair and effective opportunity to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence. The questions put to the accused must, therefore, be clear and comprehensible and should relate to the specific circumstances sought to be relied upon against him. In the present case, it appears from the record that several questions were put to the accused in a jumbled manner. Such a procedure does not accord with the underlying purpose of Section 313 Cr.P.C., particularly where the incriminating circumstances are material to the ultimate finding of guilt. 43.On an overall assessment of the evidence, I find that the testimony of P.W.3 does not inspire the confidence required for sustaining the conviction of the appellant on the basis of her sole testimony. This conclusion is not founded merely upon the absence of corroboration. Rather, the testimony of P.W.3 itself is required to be considered along with the material contradictions and omissions emerging from the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses and the statements recorded during investigation. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 21 44.The prosecution witnesses have given materially divergent versions regarding the circumstances preceding and following the alleged occurrence. There are discrepancies concerning the source of knowledge of P.W.1 and P.W.5, the alleged apprehension of the accused by the villagers, the reporting of the occurrence to the police authorities and the circumstances in which the witnesses came to know about the incident. Several of these facts were either not disclosed during investigation or were introduced subsequently at the stage of trial. The cumulative effect of these discrepancies cannot be ignored while determining whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 45.It is true that every contradiction or omission appearing in the evidence of a witness cannot be elevated to the status of a material contradiction. Human testimony is naturally liable to contain minor variations arising from lapse of time, perception and manner of recollection. However, the discrepancies in the present case concern circumstances forming part of the core narrative of the prosecution and, therefore, cannot be conveniently brushed aside as insignificant variations. 46.The defence has not examined any witness in support of its case. Nevertheless, the absence of defence evidence does not lessen or shift the fundamental burden resting upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must succeed on the C.R.A. 460 of 2017 22 strength of its own evidence and cannot derive substantive support from any weakness in the defence. 47.It is profitable to quote paragraph 23 of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Babu Venkatesh (supra) interalia that- 23. After analysing the law as to how the power under Section 156(3)CrPC has to be exercised, this Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] has observed thus : (SCC p. 306, paras 30-31) “30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3)CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That C.R.A. 460 of 2017 23 apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. 31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature C.R.A. 460 of 2017 24 of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” 48.The materials available on record indicate that the safeguards governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as specifically emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decision, have not been complied with in the present case. In particular, there is no satisfactory material to demonstrate that the complainant had, prior to invoking the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., exhausted the statutory remedies contemplated under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. 49.Furthermore, the mandatory procedural safeguard relating to the filing of an affidavit in support of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as underscored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has also not been complied with. Such safeguards are intended to ensure that the extraordinary jurisdiction under C.R.A. 460 of 2017 25 Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not invoked mechanically or casually and that the allegations made before the Magistrate carry the necessary degree of responsibility and accountability. 50.Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the State that the evidence on record forms an unbroken and reliable chain establishing the involvement of the appellant. The evidence, when considered cumulatively, leaves material areas of uncertainty which cannot be resolved against the accused. 51.In a criminal proceeding, the standard of proof remains proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions and omissions and does not inspire sufficient confidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. The Court cannot sustain a conviction merely on the basis of suspicion or on the assumption that the prosecution version is more probable than the defence version. 52.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, I find that the testimony of P.W.3 does not inspire sufficient confidence to form the sole basis of conviction and that the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses does not furnish the necessary assurance to overcome the material inconsistencies appearing on record. The prosecution has consequently failed to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. C.R.A. 460 of 2017 26 53.Accordingly, I am constrained to hold that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable either on facts or in law. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. 54.Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. 55.The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 12.06.2017 and 16.06.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Sessions Trial No. 08(01)/2017, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 568 of 2016, are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted. 56.The appellant, is on bail, shall stand discharged from the bail bond, subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 57.Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court Records be forthwith sent down to the Trial Court. 58.Urgent Photostat certified of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)