Panchayat Election Violence: Supreme Court Orders Rehearing of Mass Acquittal Case

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 28, 2018, ruled on an appeal challenging the acquittal of 82 accused persons in a violent clash following the 1993 panchayat elections in Karanda village, West Bengal. The case, Menoka Malik & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal, involved a mass attack allegedly carried out by CPI(M) workers on IPF party members, leading to five deaths and 24 serious injuries. The Supreme Court found that both the trial court and the High Court had overlooked key material evidence and failed to exercise due judicial diligence. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration.

The judgment underscores the importance of scrutinizing mass acquittals in cases of political violence and ensuring that courts do not dismiss significant eyewitness testimonies due to minor inconsistencies.

Background of the Case

The case originated from violent clashes following the West Bengal panchayat elections held on May 30, 1993. The CPI(M) party had emerged victorious, while the IPF party lost. The next day, at around 8:30 AM, approximately 15-16 IPF workers took shelter in the house of Badal Malik (PW2), fearing an attack from CPI(M) workers.

At around 1:30 PM, CPI(M) workers allegedly mobilized around 250-300 armed supporters. The mob reportedly set houses on fire, looted properties, and assaulted IPF supporters. The violence resulted in five deaths and serious injuries to 24 people. The first information report (FIR) was lodged by Menoka Malik (PW1), and a case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 448, 325, 326, 436, 379, 307, and 302.

The trial court acquitted all 82 accused, citing inconsistencies in witness statements, contradictions between medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, and non-recovery of burnt articles. The State of West Bengal did not appeal the acquittal. However, the first informant, Menoka Malik, and three others filed a revision petition before the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the acquittal. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants argued that:

• The trial court ignored crucial evidence, including the testimonies of 36 eyewitnesses, many of whom were injured victims.
• The High Court failed to review whether the trial court’s reasoning was justified.
• There were clear allegations of unlawful assembly and arson, yet the courts failed to consider charges beyond murder.
• The mass acquittal was based on technical grounds rather than an objective assessment of evidence.
• The theory of a stampede causing injuries was illogical, as only one group (IPF supporters) suffered injuries.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of West Bengal and the accused argued that:

• The trial court thoroughly examined the evidence and found inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
• Medical reports contradicted the claims of sharp weapon injuries, as most wounds were bruises and abrasions.
• The High Court, in its revisionary jurisdiction, could not interfere unless there was a gross miscarriage of justice.
• The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found multiple flaws in the reasoning of both the trial court and the High Court. The Court held:

“The presence of 24 injured eyewitnesses in the case and their consistent testimonies cannot be disregarded merely due to minor discrepancies.”

The Court criticized the lower courts for dismissing eyewitness accounts on technical grounds:

“In cases of mass violence, it is unrealistic to expect all witnesses to provide identical details. Minor embellishments should not lead to wholesale rejection of testimony.”

The Court also pointed out that the High Court failed to consider crucial evidence, including:

• Eyewitness accounts confirming that CPI(M) workers set houses on fire.
• Seizure lists (Exhibit 1) proving the recovery of burnt articles.
• Testimonies of injured victims describing the attack in detail.

On the issue of unlawful assembly, the Supreme Court ruled:

“The accused came in a group, armed with weapons, and set houses on fire, fully aware that IPF supporters had taken shelter inside. This is sufficient to establish unlawful assembly and common object.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The High Court’s judgment affirming the trial court’s acquittal was set aside.
• The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
• The High Court was directed to examine the trial court’s findings more critically and ensure that all relevant evidence was considered.

Conclusion

The ruling in Menoka Malik & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal underscores the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring fair trials, particularly in politically sensitive cases. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must scrutinize mass acquittals carefully and that minor discrepancies in witness statements should not lead to the wholesale rejection of their testimonies.

This case serves as an important reminder that justice should not be denied due to procedural lapses, especially in incidents involving large-scale political violence.

Petitioner Name: Menoka Malik & Ors..
Respondent Name: State of West Bengal.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Karanda Village, West Bengal, India.
Judgment Date: 28-08-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Menoka Malik & Ors. vs State of West Bengal Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category