Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse

Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of four individuals for the murder of Upen Roy in Uttar Dinajpur, dismissing their appeal against a life sentence under Sections 448 and 302 of the IPC. The appellants argued that one of them, Badal Sarkar, had been convicted under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge being framed against him, amounting to a violation of his right to a fair trial. The court, however, rejected this contention, observing that "mere non-framing of a charge does not automatically vitiate a trial unless it is shown that the accused suffered actual prejudice."

The case arose from an incident on 9th March 2004, when a group of 19 men forcibly broke into the house of Upen Roy at 2:30 AM, dragged him outside, and brutally assaulted him with iron rods, sticks, and hammers. The victim was later found unconscious in front of a local school, where the assailants continued to beat him until he succumbed to his injuries. The motive behind the crime, as per the prosecution, was political rivalry, as the victim’s sister was contesting local elections against the accused’s faction.

The Trial Court, in its judgment dated 15th March 2017, convicted four of the accused under Section 302 IPC, while acquitting 15 others. The convicted individuals appealed, raising multiple legal challenges, including procedural errors in the trial.

"Charge Under Section 302 IPC Need Not Be Explicit If Trial Proceedings Make It Clear"
The primary argument advanced by the defense was that Badal Sarkar had been convicted under Section 302 IPC despite no formal charge being framed against him, thereby violating his fundamental right to a fair trial. The defense cited Willie (William) Slaney v. State of MP (AIR 1956 SC 116) and Suraj Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1955 SC 419), contending that such a procedural lapse was sufficient to set aside the conviction.

The High Court, however, rejected this claim, ruling that the accused was well aware of the nature of the charges against him and had defended himself accordingly. Citing Main Pal v. State of Haryana (2010) 10 SCC 130, the court held:

"The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for. However, when the trial proceedings make it abundantly clear that the accused was aware of the allegations and had an opportunity to defend himself, the absence of a formal charge does not lead to a failure of justice."

The court further emphasized that: "A procedural irregularity must be weighed against the substance of the trial. The accused, represented by experienced counsel, cross-examined witnesses, challenged the prosecution’s case, and was fully aware that he was being tried for murder. He cannot now claim ignorance of the charge."

"Acquittal of Co-Accused Cannot Be Used to Seek Parity in Conviction"
The appellants also argued that since two similarly placed accused—Sukumar Biswas and Pabitra Biswas—were acquitted, they too should be granted the benefit of doubt. The court, however, rejected this argument, holding that wrongful acquittals cannot justify setting aside rightful convictions.

Relying on Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023) 9 SCC 164, the court observed: "The principle of parity applies only when two accused stand on the same footing. If one is acquitted and another convicted, the court must assess whether the evidence against them was identical. In the present case, multiple witnesses identified the appellants as playing an active role in the assault. The fact that others may have been wrongly acquitted does not entitle them to the same relief."

The court further reinforced this principle by referring to R Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO (2022 SCC OnLine SC 151), stating: "There is no negative equality in law. A wrongful acquittal cannot multiply itself to confer immunity on another accused."

"Non-Seizure of Weapons and Delay in Recording Witness Statements Not Fatal to Prosecution"
The defense also contended that the alleged murder weapons—iron rods, sticks, and hammers—were never recovered, and that there was a delay in recording the statements of key eyewitnesses, weakening the prosecution's case.

The court dismissed these claims, holding that: "When multiple eyewitnesses provide consistent and credible testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, the failure to seize the weapons does not create any reasonable doubt. The injuries detailed in the post-mortem report align perfectly with the weapons described by the witnesses."

Addressing the delay in witness statements, the court relied on Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal (2016) 16 SCC 418, stating: "A delay in recording witness statements does not automatically render testimony unreliable. It is only when such testimony is contradictory, inconsistent, or uncorroborated that it may be doubted. In this case, the eyewitnesses consistently identified the accused and corroborated each other’s statements."

"Darkness of the Night No Bar to Identification"
One of the final arguments made by the appellants was that since the attack took place at 2:30 AM, the eyewitnesses could not have properly identified the assailants. The court rejected this argument, referring to Dharmendra Kumar v. State of MP (2024 INSC 480), where it was held: "Identification at night is not impossible, especially in rural settings where individuals are familiar with each other. Courts cannot assume that darkness completely impairs recognition, particularly when multiple witnesses provide independent and corroborative identifications."

The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction of the four appellants, ruling that: "Justice cannot be reduced to a game of technicalities. The accused were well aware that they were facing trial for murder, they cross-examined witnesses, and they defended themselves accordingly. A procedural oversight in framing charges does not automatically overturn a conviction unless prejudice is demonstrated, which is absent in this case."

Dismissing the appeal, the court reinforced a long-standing legal principle: "It is not enough to merely claim a procedural lapse. The accused must prove that such a lapse resulted in an unfair trial. In this case, no such injustice has been demonstrated."
With this ruling, the High Court affirmed the life sentence of the four appellants, ensuring that procedural arguments do not overshadow substantive justice.

Date of Decision: 21 February 2025