Dismissed¶26

State of West Bengal v. Rouson Ali Mondal and Others.

Calcutta HC23 Jun 2025GA/8/1976

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: State appeal against acquittal; GA 8 of 1976; Calcutta High Court; Sections 148/302 read with 149/307 IPC; murder/rioting/attempt to murder; Khardah; 1972 paddy-harvest land attack; spears lathis iron rods; homicidal head injuries; sudden fight; previously existing complications; unrepresented respondents; ex parte disposal on merits; Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC Online SC 176; no scope for interference; acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the Trial Court's acquittal stands upheld. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶26

State of West Bengal Vs Rouson Ali Mondal and Others. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Trial Court's acquittal stands upheld. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court (judgment and order dated 21.08.1975) should be interfered with on the State's appeal.

¶23

Court's answer

The order of acquittal was recorded by the Learned Trial Judge upon consideration of all the materials placed before him; this Court is not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the State.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, including Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025 SCC Online, SC 176), there is no scope for interference by this Court as the impugned judgment and order appears justified and reasonable.

¶25

Key takeaways

Dispensing with further service on the unrepresented respondents will not prejudice them, having regard to the record and the proposed order; the matter could be taken up and disposed of on merits.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, High Court at Calcutta — GA 8 of 1976 (decided 23.06.2025). The State of West Bengal appealed against the acquittal dated 21.08.1975 (Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Alipore) of nine accused charged under Sections 148/302 read with 149/307 IPC for the attack of 16.11.1972 with spears, lathis and iron rods on Jamat Ali Mondal and Enayet Mondal while reaping paddy on disputed plot nos. 1933 and 1933/2100; Jamat Ali Mondal died of ante-mortem homicidal head injuries (autopsy 18.11.1972). The Trial Court had treated the episode as a sudden fight arising from pre-existing complications while the accused sought to prevent removal of the paddy. With the respondents unrepresented and service dispensed with, the Bench (judgment by Apurba Sinha Ray, J.; Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. concurring) held that the acquittal was recorded upon consideration of all materials and, following the Apex Court precedent of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC Online, SC 176, found no scope for interference. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj And

¶5

The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

¶6

GA 8 of 1976

¶7

The State of West Bengal

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Rouson Ali Mondal & Ors.

¶10

For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P. : Mr. Parthapratim Das, Adv.

¶11

Heard On : 23.06.2025 Judgment Delivered On : 23.06.2025

¶12

Apurba Sinha Ray, J. :-

¶13

1. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that victims, namely, Jamat Ali Mondal and Enayet Mondal had purchased the disputed lands being plot no. 1933 and 1933/2100 along with other lands in the year 1945 from Ahad Box Sarkar by virtue of a registered kobala, and since then, they had been possessing the said land with absolute ownership. They cultivated paddy in that land and at 8 a.m. on 16.11.1972, when they were reaping the ripe paddy so grown from that land in the company of their respective sons and other labourers, the accused persons with reference along with 30/40 people entered the land and attacked them with spears, lathis, and iron rods. As a result of such attack, Jamat Ali Mondal and Enayet Ali Mondal both sustained serious injuries and were taken to Khardah Hospital, and thereafter, shifted to Calcutta Medical College and Hospital. Enayet Ali Mondal was released on that

¶14

¶15

very day but Jamat Ali Mondal died and post-mortem examination of the latter’s dead body was held on 18.11.1972. Autopsy surgeon opined that the death was due to the effects of the head injuries and that it was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.

¶16

2. After the incident, F.I.R. was lodged by Sukkur Ali Mondal, s/o Enayet Ali Mondal, at Khardah Police Station, and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 148/302 read with 149/307 of the I.P.C. After commitment, the case was transferred to the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st Court, Alipore, for trial and disposal. The prosecution has examined altogether 13 witnesses to prove its case.

¶17

3. At the time of trial, from cross examination and examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C, it is found that accused persons were the real owners of the disputed lands as their name was recorded in RS and CS record of rights.

¶18

4. By judgment and order dated 21.08.1975, the accused persons Roushan Ali Mondal, Umed Ali Mondal, Jamat Ali Hati, Sk. Ali Mohammad, Hazi Anwar Ali, Achmat Ali Mondal, Khela Mondal, Ena Mondal @ Enayet, and Janab Ali Mondal were found not guilty under Sections 148/302 read with 149/307 of the I.P.C. and they were acquitted from all the charges of the case. The Learned Court found that there were some previously existing complications between the parties, and the accused persons went to the disputed land to prevent the victims from removing the paddy and a hot altercation was started which resulted in a sudden fight between the parties.

¶19

5. The State has preferred this appeal on 21.04.1976, challenging the said judgment of acquittal. In spite of service, the respondents remained unrepresented, and as such, the matter is taken up for disposal on its merits.

¶20

¶21

5. The Trial Court, after compliance with necessary formalities, recorded an order of acquittal which is in challenge before this Hon'ble Court. In spite of service, the respondents are unrepresented, and hence, the matter is taken up for disposal on merits.

¶22

6. In our view, it will not prejudice the respondents even if the service is dispensed with after taking into consideration all materials available on the record and in view of the order that we propose to pass.

¶23

7. We have heard the Learned Public Prosecutor who argues in favour of the appeal and points out some infirmities in the order of the Trial Judge.

¶24

8. This court, however, is not convinced with the arguments advanced on behalf of the State since, according to us, the order of acquittal has been recorded by the Learned Trial Judge upon consideration of all the materials placed before him.

¶25

9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time immemorial and recently in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2025 SCC Online, SC 176, We do not think there is any scope for interference by this Hon'ble Court as the impugned judgment and order seems to be justified and reasonable.

¶26

10. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶27

I Agree.

¶28

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)

¶29

(APURBA SINHA RAY, J.)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 21.08.1975 of acquittal of the nine named accused of all charges under Sections 148/302 read with 149/307 IPC, on findings of pre-existing complications between the parties and a sudden fight while the accused sought to prevent removal of paddy.¶18
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Alipore · 21.08.1975
Prior proceeding
Victims Jamat Ali Mondal and Enayet Mondal had purchased the disputed plot nos. 1933 and 1933/2100 (with other lands) from Ahad Box Sarkar in 1945 by registered kobala and possessed/cultivated them.¶13
Prior proceeding
At about 8 a.m. on 16.11.1972, while the victims were reaping ripe paddy with their sons and labourers, the accused with 30/40 persons entered the land and attacked them with spears, lathis and iron rods; both victims sustained serious injuries and were taken to Khardah Hospital and thence to Calcutta Medical College and Hospital; Enayet was released the same day.¶13
Prior proceeding
Jamat Ali Mondal died; post-mortem examination on 18.11.1972 attributed death to ante-mortem, homicidal head injuries.¶15
Prior proceeding
F.I.R. lodged by Sukkur Ali Mondal, son of Enayet Ali Mondal, at Khardah Police Station.¶16
Prior proceeding
On completion of investigation, police charge-sheeted the accused under Sections 148/302 read with 149/307 of the I.P.C.¶16
Prior proceeding
After commitment, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, for trial and disposal.¶16
Prior proceeding
Prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses.¶16
Prior proceeding
Trial Court found the accused not guilty under Sections 148/302 read with 149/307 IPC and acquitted them of all charges (impugned judgment).¶18
Prior proceeding
Basis of acquittal: previously existing complications between the parties; accused went to disputed land to prevent removal of paddy, and a hot altercation ripened into a sudden fight.¶18
Prior proceeding
The State preferred the present appeal on 21.04.1976 challenging the acquittal.¶19

State of West Bengal v. Rouson Ali Mondal and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of West Bengal v. Rouson Ali Mondal and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswa Nath Patra Vs the State

Ashed Sk @ Ased Ali Vs the State

Pasupati Mal & Anr. Vs State

Rahamat Ali Molla @ Rahamat Molla &Anr Vs the State of West Bengal

State of West Bengal Vs Chinibas and Ors.

The State of W.B. Vs Angad Singh