Eyewitnesses Don't Lie and Pipe Guns Don’t Vanish Truth: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Non-Recovery of Weapon

“Where direct evidence exists, failure to recover the weapon is not fatal – Trustworthy eyewitnesses and medical corroboration establish common intention beyond doubt,”  In a detailed and strongly reasoned judgment, the Calcutta High Court upheld the life sentence imposed on Dhanu Ghosh and three others for the brutal murder committed aboard a boat, rejecting the argument that non-recovery of the pipe gun or bullet cast doubt on the conviction. The Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed the appeal filed by the accused affirming the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katwa.

The Court ruled that “eyewitness accounts consistent with medical evidence leave no scope for interference with the conviction”, and held that common intention was clearly established through the coordinated role of all accused.

“Absence of Bullet Does Not Erase the Wound” – Court Rejects Defence Theory Built on Technicalities

The case related to the murder of Sridam Ghosh on 19th June 1999, who was shot in the throat at close range on a boat journey between Raghupur and Katwa. The prosecution case was led by PW1 and PW4, both brothers of the deceased and eyewitnesses to the murder, who testified that Dhanu Ghosh pulled out a pipe gun and fired at the victim, while the other accused instigated the killing as part of a revenge plot.

The defence attacked the credibility of witnesses, raised doubts about the weapon, and argued that contradictions and non-recovery of the bullet or gun created reasonable doubt.

But the High Court found otherwise. It held:“The penetrating injury was on the left side of the neck… the blackening and tauting of the surrounding area clearly suggests a gunshot from a close range… we find no force in the submission that since the bullet was not found, the appellants cannot be held liable.” [Para 33]

“Three Brothers on a Boat, Two Watch a Murder – This Is Not a Tale, But Eyewitness Truth”

The narrative of the crime was both chilling and clear. The victim’s brothers (PW1, PW3, PW4) testified in graphic and consistent detail, describing how the accused surrounded the victim, pulled out a pipe gun, and shot him at point-blank range. Their presence was unshaken in cross-examination, and their testimonies were found mutually corroborative.

The Court noted:“The statements of such witnesses corroborate each other and also the case of the prosecution.” [Para 31]

“Descriptions of the occurrence given by such witnesses are consistent and duly corroborated by medical evidence.” [Para 35]

Even the boatman (PW2), though not an eyewitness to the moment of firing, testified about the immediate aftermath, hearing a gunshot-like sound, and seeing people crying and a man lying dead in the boat. Another witness (PW3), though he arrived shortly after, testified that he saw the accused fleeing the scene.

“Previous Enmity Cuts Both Ways – May Show Motive, Not Malice in Evidence”

The defence sought to argue that the murder charge was fabricated due to prior enmity and multiple ongoing cases between the families. However, the High Court cautioned against such defences becoming “a two-edged sword.”

The Court held:

“The appellants have been falsely implicated out of previous enmity — this plea may also result in providing a motive behind the incident… we are not at all convinced with such defence.” [Para 34]

Further, it reiterated that motive is immaterial where eyewitnesses to the crime exist:

“It is trite law that in presence of eyewitnesses, motive becomes redundant.” [Para 35]

“Gun or No Gun, the Wound Spoke Louder”: Medical Evidence Leaves No Doubt

The post-mortem report by PW7 was vital. It revealed gunshot injuries on the left side of the neck, with classic signs of a close-range shot, including blackening and tauting. Despite the bullet not being recovered, the doctor confirmed:

“The injuries were ante mortem and homicidal in nature… caused by gunshots from very close range.” [Para 23]

The Court relied heavily on this medical corroboration, which aligned precisely with the testimony of PW1 and PW4.

“Defence Cross-Examination Fails to Shake the Truth” – Witnesses Stand Tall

The Court highlighted that none of the material witnesses were successfully discredited in cross-examination. It observed:

“The defence has not been able to dislodge the testimony of such witnesses as is evident from their cross-examination.” [Para 31]

Further, the non-examination of the scribe of the complaint was held not fatal, since the complaint was promptly lodged, and the author was not material to the core facts.

The Court also dismissed the claim of prejudice under Section 313 CrPC, stating:

“No material prejudice was shown — the questions did not deprive the accused of fair opportunity.” [Para 7]

Life Imprisonment Stands, No Interference with Conviction

The High Court found no perversity or misapplication of law in the Trial Court’s reasoning. It affirmed both the conviction and sentence:

“We are of the view that the prosecution was sufficiently able to prove the charges with convincing evidence… we find no justification in interfering with the judgment of conviction and sentence.” [Para 37]

The period already spent in custody was directed to be set off under Section 428 CrPC, and the appeal was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 06.11.2025