Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder

“Where Two Views Are Possible, One Favouring the Accused Must Prevail”— In a significant judgment in criminal jurisprudence reaffirming the core principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof, the Calcutta High Court acquitted a man convicted for murder and attempt to murder, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to glaring contradictions in eyewitness, medical, ballistic, and recovery evidence.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta set aside the conviction of Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk., who was earlier sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of one Subham Dey and causing injuries to others in a shooting incident that took place in Murshidabad on 7 January 2015.

“The weaknesses in the prosecution case are not trivial but fundamental; they strike at the root of the conviction,” the Court held, granting benefit of doubt to the appellant.

“Scientific Evidence Completely Demolishes the Prosecution Theory”—Court Finds Bullet Did Not Match Alleged Murder Weapon

One of the most damning findings of the Court was related to the ballistic evidence, which categorically confirmed that the bullet recovered from the deceased's skull did not match the revolver allegedly recovered from the accused pursuant to a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

“The ballistic report unequivocally states that the fatal gunshot was not fired from the recovered revolver,” the Court observed, holding that the prosecution's theory of the weapon used stood entirely disproved by scientific analysis.

In doing so, the Court also rejected the evidentiary value of the recovery, stating that forensic disconnect between weapon and bullet nullifies the probative worth of the Section 27 disclosure.

Eyewitnesses “Not of Sterling Quality”—Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedents to Discredit Key Prosecution Witnesses

The case turned heavily on the testimony of two injured eyewitnesses—PW16 (Sattya Sarkar) and PW19 (Nirmal Dey)—who claimed that the accused fired at them and at the deceased. However, the Court found that their accounts were riddled with inconsistencies, contradicting medical and forensic evidence.

PW16 claimed to have suffered a gunshot injury in the jaw with uprooted teeth. Yet, the doctor found no bullet residue, no x-ray confirmation, and no visible signs of such trauma.

Similarly, PW19 alleged he was hit with the butt of a pistol, but medical records showed sharp-cut injuries consistent with a knife—a weapon never recovered.

“These inconsistencies are not peripheral but go to the root of the prosecution story,” the Bench noted, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) to hold that the eyewitnesses did not qualify as “sterling witnesses”.

Place of Occurrence Not Established—Site Plan and Forensic Traces Absent

Another crucial deficiency in the prosecution case was its failure to establish the actual place of the crime. The Court found that the site plan prepared by the investigating officer did not indicate the hotel or shop allegedly owned by the complainant or the accused, nor did it match the claimed location of the incident.

“No bloodstains, bullet marks, cartridges, or forensic traces were recovered from any identified location,” the judgment noted, observing that this undermined the entire prosecution narrative.

Recovery Evidence Collapses—Knife Not Found, Motorcycles Missing, Witnesses Hostile

The Court also highlighted several fractures in the chain of evidence, including:

• No recovery of the knife used to inflict sharp-cut injuries on PW19.

• No seizure of motorcycles, despite claims that the victims were on bikes at the time of the attack.

• No independent or natural witnesses were examined, including rickshaw pullers or locals who might have assisted post-incident.

• Several prosecution witnesses were declared hostile, weakening the evidentiary chain further.

The Court emphasised that scientific and circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain, especially in murder trials, citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam.

Acquittal Under Arms Act Highlights Evidentiary Deficiency—Even Sanction Would Not Cure Ballistic Disproof

While the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for want of sanction, the Division Bench observed that even if sanction had existed, the ballistic mismatch alone was sufficient to disprove the prosecution's theory of use of a firearm by the accused.

“The prosecution offered no alternative theory or corroborative evidence to establish what weapon, if any, was used,” the Court said.

Legal Principles Reaffirmed: “Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Take Place of Proof”

Relying on established precedents, including Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, and Naresh v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated:

“Where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted.”

The Court also endorsed the test in Sujit Biswas, observing that “the distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence.”

Appeal Allowed—Conviction Set Aside, Appellant Acquitted

In conclusion, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and that the conviction by the Trial Court was unsustainable in law and on facts.

“The appellant is acquitted of the offence as alleged,” the Court declared, ordering his immediate release if not wanted in any other case, subject to bond under Section 437A CrPC.

Date of Decision: 11 December 2025