Trial Judge 'Put Words In Mouth Of Witness': Calcutta High Court Acquits Death Row Convict In Political Murder Case

The Calcutta High Court refused to confirm the death sentence imposed on a man convicted of murdering a political worker and ultimately set aside both the conviction and sentence, citing serious evidentiary gaps, investigative lapses, and fundamental errors in the trial court's appreciation of evidence.

A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray was dealing with a death reference and a connected criminal appeal filed by the convict Baladeb Paul, who had been sentenced to death by a Sessions Court for allegedly shooting Naimuddin Khan during a clash on the day nomination papers were being filed in a local election in 2011.

At the outset, the Court examined whether the death sentence could be sustained in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh governing the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Bench noted that the trial judge failed to follow the mandatory sentencing guidelines, particularly the requirement to gather information regarding mitigating circumstances of the accused before imposing capital punishment.

The Court observed that the trial court did not collect or consider relevant information about the accused's background and mitigating circumstances, as mandated by the Supreme Court. It held that the sentencing process itself suffered from serious legal infirmities, noting that “the process of sentencing the convict Baldeb Paul to suffer death sentence is based on an inappropriate application of judicial mind and, therefore, such process of sentencing cannot be allowed to stand.”

The Bench then proceeded to examine whether the conviction itself was sustainable. After reviewing the evidence, the Court found numerous inconsistencies in the prosecution case. Several key witnesses either did not support the prosecution version or did not name the accused as the shooter, despite the trial court's observation to the contrary. The High Court remarked that the trial judge had incorrectly stated that all witnesses had implicated the accused, when in fact many witnesses had not done so.

The Court was particularly critical of the trial court for misreading witness testimony and inserting conclusions unsupported by evidence. Referring to the testimony of a witness declared hostile, the Bench observed that the trial court had effectively “put words in the mouth of the said witness”, which was impermissible.

Serious deficiencies were also found in the investigation. The High Court noted that no firearm allegedly used in the crime was recovered, no empty cartridges were seized despite allegations of multiple gunshots, and no ballistic report was produced during trial. The Bench held that these were not minor discrepancies but “very serious” omissions that undermined the prosecution case.

Further, the Court pointed out that the contents of the inquest report were not admitted in evidence, yet the trial judge relied upon them while deciding the case. Statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also treated as exhibits even though the concerned magistrates were not examined to prove them. After examining the trial court records, the High Court found that certain exhibits referred to by the trial judge did not even exist on record, describing this as “a clear non-application of mind and dereliction of duties entrusted upon a Judicial Officer.”

The Bench also emphasised that the case had political overtones and most of the witnesses relied upon were politically affiliated with the deceased. In the absence of corroboration from independent witnesses, their testimony required careful scrutiny.

Summarising the deficiencies, the Court listed several critical lapses including lack of independent witnesses, non-recovery of weapons, failure to prove key documents, absence of ballistic evidence, delay in forwarding the FIR, and contradictions in witness testimony.

In view of these shortcomings, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench held that the conviction of Baladeb Paul was unsustainable and accordingly set aside both the conviction and the death sentence. The death reference made by the trial court was rejected and the appeal filed by the convict was allowed.

The High Court directed that the appellant be released immediately if not required in any other case.

While doing so, the Bench also noted serious mistakes committed by the trial judge in appreciating evidence and directed that a copy of the judgment be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of appropriate corrective measures. It further ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned judicial officer in a sealed cover for guidance.

Case: The State of West Bengal vs. Baladeb Paul

Case No: Death Reference No. 8 of 2025

Click here to read order