The Calcutta High Court delivered a significant judgment in a criminal appeal arising out of a 2013 murder case by setting aside a conviction and the life sentence that had been imposed on Babai Sk., also known as Papai Sk. The appeal was allowed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, which acquitted the appellant of all charges that had been brought against him under Sections 302, 307, 324, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The court’s decision was rooted in the fundamental criminal law principle that if the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or if there is confusion or doubt caused by the prosecution’s evidence, the accused must be given the benefit of such doubt. The bench reiterated that even the testimony of eyewitnesses, including those who are injured witnesses, must be subjected to heightened scrutiny if their accounts conflict with medical or forensic evidence, or if the basic facts of the case such as the place of occurrence remain unproven.
The background of the case revealed that the Trial Court had convicted Babai Sk. for the murder of one Subham Dey, alias Ganju, and for causing injuries to the deceased’s father and an employee named Sattya Sarkar. The conviction was primarily based on statements of two injured eyewitnesses as well as an alleged recovery of a firearm that was said to have been found based on the appellant’s disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the High Court found multiple fundamental flaws in the prosecution’s case that, when viewed cumulatively, created irreconcilable doubts about the appellant’s involvement in the crime.
One of the decisive factors undermining the prosecution’s case was the opinion of the ballistic examiner, who concluded that the bullet recovered from the deceased’s head did not match either the barrel or the calibre of the firearm allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant. The court characterized this forensic mismatch as a collapse of a fundamental pillar of the prosecution’s case, holding that the theory of recovery was thereby forensically negated. This finding significantly weakened the prosecution’s narrative that the firearm recovered was used in perpetrating the murder.
The court also found serious inconsistencies in the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses identified as PW-16 and PW-19. PW-16 had claimed to have sustained a gunshot injury that uprooted three teeth, but this claim was directly contradicted by the testimony of the doctor, identified as PW-21, who testified that no gunshot injury or bullet remnants were found in his medical examination. Similarly, PW-19 stated that he had been struck with the butt of a firearm, yet the medical records described an injury that was sharp-cut in nature, suggesting a knife rather than a firearm. No knife was ever recovered. These contradictory versions not only undermined the credibility of the individual witnesses but also materially undermined the prosecution’s overarching narrative of how the incident occurred.
Another critical aspect that the High Court scrutinized was the prosecution’s failure to identify and establish the place of occurrence. The court noted that no bloodstains, bullet marks, cartridges, or any other forensic traces were recovered from any location alleged by the prosecution to be the scene of the crime. Without establishing a locus criminis, the court held that the prosecution’s story remained speculative and unsubstantiated. The absence of such fundamental forensic evidence further deepened the doubts surrounding the prosecution’s entire case.
In its judgment, the High Court emphasised the overarching duty of courts to prevent miscarriages of justice. It underscored that while reasonable doubt must be grounded in reason and common sense, it must also be fair and not imaginary or trivial. Given the array of contradictions and gaps in the prosecution’s case, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result of these findings, the conviction and life sentence previously imposed by the Trial Court were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
The case before the High Court was registered as C.R.A. 9 of 2018, titled Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. versus the State of West Bengal. The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Saswata Gopal Mukherji along with a team of advocates including Debapriya Samanta, Samrat Ghosh, Suhotro Palit, Akash Kumar Chakrabarty, and Riya Saha. The State was represented by Debasish Roy as the learned Public Prosecutor, along with advocates Zareen N. Khan and Md. Kutumuddin. The High Court’s decision reflects a meticulous re-examination of the trial evidence and an adherence to the foundational criminal jurisprudence principle that benefit of doubt must be accorded to an accused where prosecution evidence is fraught with irreconcilable contradictions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.