23 yrs after razor attack, victim withdraws plaint
Times of India | 13 May 2025
123 Kolkata: A man was acquitted by the Calcutta High Courtafter the victim, whom he had attacked with a razor 23 years ago, didn't want to continue with the case wishing the man to lead "a happy and undisrupted life".The complainant, a distant relative, sought a settlement as the man is a daily labourer earning minimal wages."Being the sole breadwinner, he (the convict) supports his family. Therefore, the de facto complainant did not wish for his conviction, hoping for a better life for his family and a happy, uninterrupted future for his cousin," said the complainant's advocate, Puja Goswami.The incident occurred in 2002, leading to an FIR being filed at Phoolbagan police station. In 2008, the man was sentenced by a lower court to six months of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 under Sections 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and 34 (joint criminal liability) of the IPC. This verdict was upheld by the additional sessions judge of Fast Track Court-II, Sealdah, in 2009. The man appealed to the high court later that same year.Given that the sections under which the accused was convicted do not pertain to heinous crimes, and that the incident occurred 23 years ago with no further occurrences since,Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta quashed the criminal proceedings against the convict. One of the reasons cited was that "criminal jurisprudenceis reformatory in nature and aims to foster peace within families, among relatives, and in society. Continuing criminal proceedings despite a voluntary compromise could lead to injustice and ill will."Justice Gupta also noted that the man was young when he committed the crime and has no criminal antecedents. "After being convicted, he has already suffered mental pain and agony due to prolonged trial as well as pendency of the appeal and revision for more than two decades," the judge noted.According to the complainant, the accused along with few others had attacked him on June 9, 2002 with a razor.Counsel for the convict, Dipankar Dandapath, while pleading innocence also pointed out that the de-facto complainant does not want to pursue the case any further and does not wish the person to be convicted.The legal question before Justice Gupta was whether a criminal proceeding against the man can be quashed after his conviction by the trial court. He detailed cases where quashing cannot happen even with the agreement of compromise between the parties, which includes heinous offences and cases which have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between victim and offender in offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act can also not be entertained for quashing.