Trial Court Failed to Consider That Eyewitness Accounts Were Inconsistent and Investigation Was Perfunctory”: Calcutta High Court Acquits In Double Murder Case

“The evidence of PW11 and PW12 are inconsistent, incoherent and mutually destructive... the investigation appears to be perfunctory.” - Calcutta High Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Apurba Sinha Ray and concurred by Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, overturned the conviction of twelve individuals in a high-profile double murder case that stemmed from the brutal daylight killings of Ashok Das and Arati Das in Krishnaganj, West Bengal, in November 2008. High Court found that the prosecution had utterly failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with material lapses in both evidence collection and witness reliability. The verdict set aside a 2017 conviction by the Fast Track Court, Krishnanagar.

The appeals arose out of Krishnaganj Police Station Case No. 179 of 2008, initiated by Mithun Das, son of the deceased, following the alleged lynching of his parents by an armed mob of 19 accused. Fourteen of them had been convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC in Sessions Case No. 31(9) of 2009, based on their purported roles in the killings that occurred at two separate locations on the same day. The remaining accused were absconding. The trial court had sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment.

The High Court framed the core issue around the standard of proof in a criminal trial, observing: “Conviction of an accused purely rests on the golden principle that the prosecution is to prove its case beyond all sorts of reasonable doubt... and in doing so the prosecution is under a duty to prove the relevant facts by producing best evidence.”

In dissecting the judgment of the trial court, the Division Bench noted with dismay: “The learned trial court’s judgment is not very much indicative to the effect that the relevant facts were proved by producing best evidence before him.”

The Court emphasized that merely proving that the deaths occurred was insufficient: “The prosecution is only to prove that the present appellants were the actual assailants who caused the death of the aforesaid couple on the day of occurrence.”

However, the prosecution's entire case rested on two witnesses—PW11 and PW12, both children of the deceased, whose testimonies were not only mutually contradictory but also lacked corroboration from any independent source.

“No attempt was made to recover the deadly weapons or looted articles... That omission fatally undermines the case.”

The Court extensively analyzed the evidence of PW12 Mithun Das, who claimed to have witnessed the attack on his father and sustained injuries while trying to intervene. But: “No medical evidence was produced from the side of the prosecution to lead credence to the allegation of PW12 in that regard... no injury report was also collected by the concerned investigating officer.”

Even though he alleged a katari injury inflicted by one of the accused, the absence of any medical corroboration left the Court unconvinced of his presence at the scene. Worse still: “During his deposition the PW12 did not state anything about such alleged injury occurring on his right hand... which could have been the best evidence to show that the PW12 was present.”

On the other hand, PW11 Sikha Das, a 13-year-old at the time, testified that she witnessed her mother being killed. Yet she admitted under cross-examination: “She gave the statement before the learned Magistrate as police tutored her to say like that.”

The Court was especially troubled by the fact that: “The judicial Magistrate who recorded such statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. should have been called for as a witness... But no attempt was made.”

Moreover, the Bench found that PW11 and PW12 named different sets of assailants and did not corroborate each other on key aspects such as who inflicted fatal injuries on their mother.

The Court remarked: “It is very much difficult to rely upon such testimonies of PW11 and PW12 without corroborative evidence.”
The Court further noted that: “The evidence of PW11 and PW12 are inconsistent, incoherent and mutually destructive.”

“No recovery of weapons, no corroboration by independent witnesses, and a flawed charge—Trial reeked of procedural lapses”
Another glaring failure noted was that: “No such instruments were seized by the I.O. from the possession of the accused persons... no attempt for recovery of offending weapons nor looted articles was made.”

This, despite the fact that the murders involved sharp weapons and the FIR clearly alleged looting. The High Court noted: “Such lapses... particularly when the evidence of PW11 and PW12 are not free from blemishes.”

Additionally, the Court criticized the framing of charge, noting that both incidents (murder of father and mother) were clubbed under a single composite charge:“Charges have been framed against all the accused persons including the accused of the second incident jointly... framing of charge was also not done properly.”
The investigation was described as substandard: “We have strong doubt about the competence, ability and good intention on the part of the concerned I.O., Mr. Jaharlal Chatterjee.”

Holding that the trial court erred in relying solely on flawed and inconsistent testimony, and pointing to a series of procedural and evidentiary failings, the Calcutta High Court concluded: “The prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the convict persons beyond all sorts of reasonable doubts... The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.”
Accordingly, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and all twelve convicts, including Krishna Gopal Das, Kanai Das, Shambhu Das, Sufal Das, Lakshmi Das, Biswanath Das, and others, were acquitted and ordered to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case.

Date of Decision: 30 April 2025