Calcutta High Court Acquits Man In 2013 Murder Case; Says Prosecution Evidence Riddled With 'Irreconcilable Contradictions'
The Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. in a 2013 murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 of the IPC.
Reiterating the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Bench observed:
“If any confusion or doubt is created from the evidence of the prosecution witness, even an eyewitness, the Court will be leaning towards acquittal… if any doubt is created about the involvement of the appellant in the crime, he must get the privilege of benefit of doubt.”
The Court cautioned that while injured eyewitnesses ordinarily command a high degree of reliability, their testimony must be subjected to heightened scrutiny where the ocular account contradicts medical or forensic evidence, or where the very genesis or place of occurrence becomes doubtful.
Background
The Trial Court had convicted Babai Sk. for the murder of Subham Dey @ Ganju, and for causing injuries to the deceased's father and an employee, Sattya Sarkar, relying primarily on the statements of two injured eyewitnesses and the alleged recovery of a firearm pursuant to the appellant's disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The Bench found several “fundamental flaws” in the prosecution case that cumulatively created an irreconcilable doubt regarding the appellant's involvement.
A decisive factor was the ballistic examiner's opinion that the bullet extracted from the deceased's head did not match the barrel or calibre of the firearm allegedly recovered at the appellant's instance.
Calling the forensic mismatch a collapse of “a fundamental pillar of the prosecution case,” the Court held that the recovery theory stood forensically negated.
The testimony of injured eyewitnesses PW-16 and PW-19 suffered from serious inconsistencies: PW-16 claimed he sustained a gunshot injury that uprooted three teeth. The doctor (PW-21) categorically stated that no gunshot injury or bullet remnants were found.
PW-19 said he was struck with the butt of a firearm, but medical records described a sharp-cut injury, consistent with a knife—an object never recovered. These contradictions, the Court held, materially undermined the credibility of the prosecution's narrative.
It was held that the prosecution was unable to identify the place of occurrence. No bloodstains, no bullet marks, no cartridges, and no forensic traces were recovered from any location.
The Bench emphasised that in the absence of a proved locus criminis, the prosecution's story remained speculative. Quoting the governing principle, the Court underscored:
“The Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided… the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not imaginary or trivial, but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense.”
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.R.A. 9 of 2018 were quashed.
Case no. – C.R.A. 9 of 2018
Case Title – Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. Versus The State of West Bengal
Advocates for appellant : Saswata Gopal Mukherji, Senior Advocate, Adv. Debapriya Samanta, Adv. Samrat Ghosh, Adv. Suhotro Palit , Adv. Akash Kumar Chakrabarty, Adv. Riya Saha
Advocates for State : Debasish Roy, Ld. PP, Adv. Zareen N. Khan , Adv. Md. Kutumuddin