An FIR Is Not Encyclopaedia - Omissions Do Not Discredit Testimony If Corroborated: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction

Calcutta High Court affirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta upheld the trial court’s ruling, rejecting the defense’s plea of evidentiary gaps and holding that direct eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, clearly established common intention and culpability in the brutal killing following a dispute over stolen mangoes.

“The FIR is not an encyclopaedia… omissions do not discredit testimony if corroborated”: Minor lapses in complaint do not invalidate credible eyewitness evidence

The case revolved around the brutal murder of Golam Mostafa Mondal on 25th May 2009, who was attacked with sharp-edged weapons by a group of villagers after confronting them for allegedly stealing mangoes from his orchard in the aftermath of Cyclone Aila. The appellants—Mekail Mondal, Shahjahan Mondal, Fateh Ali Mondal, and others—were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 4th Court, Barrackpore, for acting in concert with deadly force, resulting in the victim’s death on the spot.

In rejecting the primary defense argument regarding discrepancies between the written complaint (FIR) and the witness testimony, the Court held:

“A written complaint resulting in an FIR need not contain all the details. An FIR is not an encyclopaedia. Minor omissions or additions in the FIR do not necessarily discredit the deposition of witnesses, especially when corroborated by others.” [Para 29]

The Court emphasized the rural context and the emotional trauma of the complainant (PW1), citing Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, to reiterate that minor inconsistencies are to be viewed with contextual sensitivity:

“The scene of murder is rural, the witnesses to the case are rustics… discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony provided there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability…” [Para 29 quoting Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade]

“Prosecution’s Circumstantial Case Complete – Burden Shifted to Accused under Section 106 Evidence Act”: Court Applies Presumption Doctrine to Hold Accused Liable

The High Court’s decision also highlighted the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, observing that the appellants were seen at the place of occurrence with weapons just after the killing, and had failed to provide any credible explanation:

“The appellants were seen by [the witnesses] with Shabol, Kodal, and other sharp cutting weapons at the place of occurrence just after the commission of the crime… they are duty bound to explain their conduct under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” [Para 45]

The recovery of murder weapons—a Shabol and a Kodal—from areas near the appellants' homes was upheld despite procedural flaws. While the defense argued that the absence of a formal Section 27 memorandum rendered the recoveries inadmissible, the Court took a broader view, invoking Section 8 of the Evidence Act:

“The recovery was made on the date of the alleged crime… The conduct of the two appellants in pointing out the incriminating weapons to the IO is relevant to the crime committed.” [Para 44]

Citing Perumal Raja v. State (2024 SCC OnLine SC 12), the Court ruled that the mental awareness of the accused about the location of the murder weapons added probative value to the recoveries, even absent formal documentation:

“The discovery of the fact resulting in recovery of a physical object exhibits knowledge or mental awareness of the person accused… evidentiary value of Section 27 evidence cannot be codified or put in a straightjacket formula.” [Para 46 quoting Perumal Raja]

Court Finds Eyewitnesses “Natural and Credible” Despite Cross-Examination

The core of the prosecution’s case rested on the testimonies of PW2 (wife of the deceased) and PW3 (sister of the deceased), who were present at or near the scene. The defense challenged their presence and credibility, alleging improbabilities and inconsistencies. The Court decisively rejected this:

“PW2 and the victim may have been collecting mangoes and cleaning the ground at a distance… It is natural for a person to be scared of approaching the victim when he is being attacked by four persons with weapons.” [Para 37]

The Court also dismissed concerns over PW3’s ability to witness the assault:

“The pond being at a level lower than the place of occurrence is really of no significance… PW3 could have been standing on the edge of the pond and looking at the place of occurrence after hearing the commotion.” [Para 36]

The consistency of the eyewitness accounts was deemed credible, and withstood cross-examination. Their versions were further bolstered by medical evidence and the inquest report.

Post-Mortem Report Debunks Defense Claim of Accidental Death During Cyclone

A key plank of the defense argument was that the victim may have died accidentally due to a tree falling during Cyclone Aila. The High Court summarily rejected this contention, relying on the post-mortem report and the testimony of the doctor:

“This Court is of the unequivocal view that the nature of injuries caused to the victim cannot [be] by the falling of trees.” [Para 52]

The PM report listed eight grievous injuries, including skull fractures and brain extrusion, clearly indicating homicidal assault with sharp weapons.

Prior Enmity Cuts Both Ways: Motive Not Essential Where Direct Evidence Exists

The defense also attempted to argue that prior enmity between the accused and the victim’s family could have led to false implication. The Court turned this argument around:

“The said argument is a double-edged sword. It also supplies the appellants with a motive to cause harm to the victim.” [Para 53]

It further held that motive, though relevant, need not be proved when direct evidence of the crime is available:

“The prosecution is not required to conclusively prove motive where direct evidence exists.” [Para 39]

Defective Investigation No Ground for Acquittal When Direct Evidence is Available

While acknowledging that the bloodstained clothes and weapons were not sent for FSL testing, the Court maintained that such lapses did not vitiate the trial in light of compelling direct and circumstantial evidence:

“A defective investigation will not ipso facto result in an acquittal… In the backdrop of direct evidence in the instant case, the absence of scientific examination… is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.” [Para 55]

State of U.P. v. Wasif Haider (2019) was distinguished on facts.

Intent to Kill Inferred from Severity and Location of Injuries

The Court also emphasized that the nature and location of injuries demonstrated clear mens rea (criminal intention):

“They knew that the injuries inflicted could end the life of the victim since they attacked the vital organs namely the head and neck… Hence, they had the mens rea to kill the victim.” [Para 56]

Conviction Affirmed, Appeal Dismissed

In concluding its detailed analysis, the Calcutta High Court held that the evidence overwhelmingly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed:

“For the reasons stated herein above the conviction of the appellants by the Trial Court is affirmed. CRA 704 of 2016 fails and is hereby dismissed.” [Para 57]

Date of Decision: 26th September 2025