Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Panchayat-Poll Eve Murder Case, Says Oral Dying Declaration Enough To Uphold Conviction

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of two appellants for the murder of a villager shot inside his home on the eve of Panchayat elections, holding that a spontaneous oral dying declaration made by the victim immediately after being shot, and heard by his family members, constituted reliable and admissible evidence under Sections 6, 7 and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The division bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta ruled that investigative lapses and procedural irregularities could not override credible ocular and medical evidence establishing the appellants' guilt.

The case arose from an incident on the night of July 22, 2013, when the victim, Sagar Ghosh, was fired upon inside his house after assailants posed as police personnel and attempted to gain entry. The incident occurred a day before Panchayat elections, in which the victim's son was contesting as an independent candidate after being denied a ticket by the ruling party. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who were members of the ruling party, jumped the boundary wall and fired multiple shots through a grill gate, causing fatal injuries to the victim.

The victim's wife and daughter-in-law, examined as PW-14 and PW-15, deposed that immediately after the first gunshot, the victim shouted out the names of the appellants as the persons who had fired at him. The Court held that these utterances were spontaneous, formed part of the same transaction, and were therefore admissible as res gestae evidence under Sections 6 and 7 of the Evidence Act. The Court further held that the statements also amounted to an oral dying declaration under Section 32, as they directly indicated the cause of death and the persons responsible for it.

Rejecting the defence argument that the victim was not in a fit mental condition to identify his assailants, the Court relied on consistent medical evidence showing that the victim was conscious, though in pain, throughout the period between the shooting and the attempted surgeries at two hospitals. The Bench noted that the victim's immediate naming of the appellants, using their familiar names, ruled out any possibility of concoction or false implication.

The Court also dealt with discrepancies relating to medical findings, lighting conditions at the place of occurrence, and the non-production of an alleged written statement recorded by the police. It held that such inconsistencies and investigative shortcomings did not go to the root of the prosecution case, particularly when the core evidence regarding the shooting and identification of the assailants remained consistent and corroborated by medical opinion.

Addressing the delay in recording statements under Section 164 CrPC and allegations of police coercion in lodging the FIR, the Court observed that statements under Section 164 are corroborative in nature and do not override substantive evidence given during trial. It further held that exaggeration or subsequent addition of names by witnesses could be filtered out without discarding their entire testimony, relying on settled Supreme Court precedent.

The Bench also noted that the appellants failed to establish any alibi or explain their presence at the scene, which weighed against them. Holding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the life sentence imposed under Sections 302/34 IPC, along with convictions under Section 448 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

While upholding the sentence, the High Court modified the compensation direction by ordering that the fine amount be equally divided between the victim's wife and daughter-in-law. It further directed that in the event of non-payment of the fine, the State of West Bengal shall pay compensation of ₹5 lakhs to the two women, recoverable in accordance with law.

Case Title: Sajal Kanti Roy @ Subrata @ Subho & Anr. v. State of West Bengal

Case No: C.R.A. 219 of 2018

Click here to read order