Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of BSF Constable For Killing Colleague Over Relationship With Woman

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the life sentence imposed on a Border Security Force (BSF) constable for murdering his colleague over a woman with whom both men were allegedly in a physical relationship.

A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), sitting at the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, dismissed the appeal filed by C T Raghunandan, who was convicted of murdering BSF constable Arbind Kumar and subsequently concealing his body to screen himself from the offence.

The Court held that the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Dasami Modak, was sufficiently credible to sustain the conviction, particularly as it was supported by the ballistic report, inquest report, forensic evidence and call detail records.

"The obvious motive for Raghunandan to kill Arbind was to eliminate Arbind from the triangular illicit relationship between Arbind, Raghunandan and Dasami. This was kind of a revenge taken by Raghunandan against Arbind. His murderous act was obviously prompted by jealousy and urge to enjoy exclusive physical relationship with Dasami by annihilating Arbind," Justice Banerjee observed.

The appellant had been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for murder, along with seven years' rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of January 24, 2018, when Arbind Kumar was deployed at a border duty point under Durga Nagar Border Outpost in Cooch Behar.

Another BSF constable, Jitamitra Sahu, who was posted at a nearby point, heard a sound resembling a bomb explosion between 10 pm and 10:30 pm. When he attempted to contact Arbind over the radio, there was no response.

Sahu subsequently went to Arbind's duty point and began searching for him. He eventually found Arbind's body in a jungle, with his hands and legs tied.

During the investigation, police came across Dasami Modak, who claimed to have witnessed the murder.

In her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Dasami stated that she was in physical relationships with both Arbind and Raghunandan.

She stated that on the night of the incident, she had gone to meet Arbind after noticing a torchlight signal from him. While they were physically intimate, Raghunandan suddenly arrived and shot Arbind in the chest using the latter's service rifle.

Dasami further alleged that Raghunandan chased her after the shooting and threatened to kill her and her children if she disclosed the incident to anyone.

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses during the trial, including Dasami, her husband and the investigating officer.

The trial court convicted Raghunandan under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 25(i)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.

Challenging the conviction, the appellant argued that the trial itself was without jurisdiction since he was a member of the BSF, an armed force, and should have been tried by a Court-Martial in terms of Section 475(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It was further argued that the possibility of the deceased having been attacked by cattle smugglers or other miscreants in the border area could not be ruled out.

The appellant also questioned the credibility of Dasami, contending that there was an unexplained delay of 63 days in recording her statement before the Magistrate. It was argued that her testimony contained several contradictions and was inconsistent with the condition in which the deceased's body was recovered.

In particular, the defence pointed out that although Dasami claimed to have witnessed the shooting, she had not stated that the appellant tied the deceased's hands and legs after shooting him.

The appellant also questioned the medical examination, arguing that the post-mortem had been conducted by an ENT specialist who allegedly lacked the requisite expertise.

Two BSF personnel were examined as defence witnesses to establish that the appellant was resting in the barracks on the night of the incident and was not present at the crime scene.

Opposing the appeal, the State submitted that the prosecution case was primarily based on Dasami's eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by the call detail records, ballistic report and inquest report.

It was argued that the deceased's personal belongings, including his service rifle, stun grenade and magazines, were found at the spot, ruling out the possibility of robbery.

The State further pointed out that the inquest report recorded the presence of urine and probable semen in the deceased's private parts, corroborating Dasami's account that she was physically intimate with him when the shooting took place.

The ballistic report also established that the empty cartridge recovered from the scene had been fired from the deceased's INSAS rifle.

The prosecution further submitted that the appellant and the deceased had used their personal mobile phones to contact Dasami, and the call detail records established their connection with her.

Court's Findings

Addressing the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court, the High Court referred to Section 475(1) of the CrPC, which deals with the circumstances in which persons subject to military law may be tried by a Court-Martial.

The Court noted that the appellant had not demonstrated that the Central Government had framed relevant rules specifying that persons in his position were required to be tried by a Court-Martial.

It further held that even if such rules existed, they would be directory in nature and would not divest an otherwise competent criminal court of its jurisdiction.

"Any such rule would not touch the jurisdiction of the Trial Court if it otherwise has jurisdiction," the Court observed while rejecting the appellant's contention that the trial, conviction and sentence were void for want of jurisdiction.

On the credibility of the sole eyewitness, the Bench reiterated that a conviction could be based entirely on the testimony of a single witness if the evidence was reliable and trustworthy.

"The quality of evidence available in a criminal trial that is important and not the quantity of evidence," the Court observed.

The Court found that Dasami's deposition before the trial court was consistent with her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. It also noted that she had implicated herself by admitting to having physical relationships with both the deceased and the appellant.

The Bench observed that there was no apparent reason for her to falsely implicate the appellant, particularly when her testimony also exposed her own personal conduct.

"It is generally inconceivable that a lady who is a mother of two children, would implicate herself in not such an honorable incident only to falsely implicate another person," the Court observed.

The Court further noted that Dasami had withstood cross-examination and that the basic allegation regarding the appellant shooting the deceased had remained unshaken.

It held that her testimony was corroborated by the ballistic report and the inquest report, while the call detail records also supported her version that both men were in contact with her.

Rejecting the defence of alibi, the Bench found that the two defence witnesses, who were colleagues of the appellant and junior to him in the BSF, had failed to produce official records supporting their claim that he was resting in the barracks before his duty hours.

The Court also noted that one of the witnesses admitted that he had deposed about the duty timings without consulting the duty register.

The Bench observed that there was a high degree of possibility that the two witnesses were attempting to shield their senior colleague.

Ultimately, the Court held that the evidence of Dasami alone was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that it had also received support from the other evidence on record.

"There is ample evidence on record to demonstrate that the appellant committed cold blooded murder of the victim," the Court observed.

Finding no perversity in the trial court's appreciation of the evidence, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and life sentence.

Case Title: C T Raghunandan @ Raghunandan v. State of West Bengal

Case No.: CRA 22 of 2021