When FIR Is Filed After the Inquest, Investigation Begins in Reverse – That Alone Shakes the Credibility of Entire Prosecution: Calcutta High Court

“Murder Trial Built on Sand – Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Identity Beyond Reasonable Doubt…... It Cannot Be Ruled Out That The Actual Assailants Were Others – Prosecution Relied on Witnesses With Hostile Motives and Flawed Evidence”: Calcutta High Court Allows Criminal Appeal, Overturns Life Sentence

Calcutta High Court setting aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellants by the Trial Court in 2018 for the alleged murder of a man in broad daylight.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay allowed the criminal appeal, holding that the identity of the assailants had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that the investigation and evidence presented by the prosecution were marred by contradictions, unreliable witnesses, and serious procedural lapses.

The appellants had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, in connection with the murder of the victim on 12 July 2014. The Trial Court had imposed life imprisonment and fines, with additional sentences under the Arms Act.

“When FIR Is Filed After the Inquest, Investigation Begins in Reverse – That Alone Shakes the Credibility of Entire Prosecution”

The case centered around an incident where the victim was allegedly shot in front of his wife (PW 3) by two persons on a black motorcycle around 10:00 AM. However, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged only at 1:25 PM, while the inquest had already commenced by 1:15 PM. The Court found this chronological impossibility fatal to the case.

“The inquest in the present case could not have been conducted on and from 1.15 P.M., that is, 10 minutes before the entry made in the general diary as regards the death of the victim... such a sequence renders the investigation compromised from the outset,” observed the Court.

It added that no explanation was provided as to why the FIR was delayed by over three hours, and why the general diary did not reflect a corresponding earlier entry based on oral information, especially in a case of murder committed in public view

“Identity Must Be Established Through Credible Evidence – This Case Shows Only Presumption and Suspicion, Not Proof”

The core of the Court’s reasoning lay in the complete lack of credible identification of the accused. The wife of the victim, who was allegedly an eyewitness, gave only a vague physical description of the assailants as “one tall and one short man” and admitted that she came to know their names from villagers, not personal knowledge.

Though she knew the deceased brother (Biltu) of the appellants, she denied knowing the appellants themselves, which the Court found implausible.

The Bench remarked:
“If she could recall the color of the motorcycle, how can she not know who the assailants were, especially if they were brothers of someone she admitted knowing well?”

The Court also noted that her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded two months after the incident, and that she initially claimed the assailants took her husband's purse, only to later retract that version when the purse was found at home. The retraction, coupled with her inconsistent narrative, raised substantial credibility concerns.

“Witnesses Accused in a Prior Murder Case Against the Appellants – Testimony Tainted by Hostility and Motive”

Several key prosecution witnesses — PWs 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12 — had all been accused in a prior murder case involving the appellants' brother Biltu, which the Court considered a major red flag.

“It is unusual, if not outright suspicious, that all the witnesses who claim to have seen or helped recover evidence against the appellants also happen to be their adversaries in a prior criminal matter,” the Court noted.

Even the recovery witnesses for the firearm and motorcycle were among these potentially interested parties. The recovery of the pipe gun, allegedly used in the murder, was further discredited because:

• The length of the gun differed between seizure and trial,
• It lacked any forensic link to the cartridges or injuries,
• The firearm was not sent for FSL analysis, and
• The ownership of the black motorcycle was never established, and the person from whose house it was recovered was not examined as a witness.

“When the Only Independent Bystander Witness Remains Silent, It Casts a Long Shadow of Doubt”

The Court was particularly critical of PW 7, who claimed to have seen the murder from a nearby agricultural field, but never informed the police about the identity of the assailants.

“PW 7’s unexplained silence, despite claiming to have seen the assailants’ faces clearly, makes his testimony unreliable,” held the Bench, noting that even this supposedly neutral witness failed to corroborate the prosecution case meaningfully.

The Investigating Officer (PW 26) admitted that he learned of the appellants' involvement only from villagers, based on the vague description provided by PW 3. The Court emphasised:

"A tall and short man on a black motorcycle is far too generic a description to base a murder conviction on... such an identification is not enough to secure guilt beyond reasonable doubt."

The IO also failed to prepare or compare any sketch portraits, and made arrests 10 days later based on a mere “tip-off”, without any procedural safeguards.

“Retraction of Robbery Motive and Lack of Evidence of Business Dispute Undermine Entire Case Theory”

Initially, PW 3 alleged a robbery motive — claiming that the assailants snatched her husband’s purse. However, she later stated the purse was found at home, and her daughter (PW 10) confirmed that this retraction came two months later, further weakening the prosecution’s claimed motive.

The Court observed:

"It appears that PW 3 assumed a motive based on her belief that her husband owed money to others... the police never investigated whether any creditors existed."

The Bench suggested that the murder may have had a different motive altogether, unrelated to the appellants — a line of inquiry that was completely ignored by the police.

“Benefit of Doubt Is Not an Exception But a Right Where Prosecution Fails to Prove Guilt”

In its closing remarks, the Court noted:

"The role of the appellants in the murder of the victim has not been proved at all — much less beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the assailants."

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, directed the appellants' immediate release, and required execution of a bond under Section 437A CrPC (corresponding to Section 481 of BNSS, 2023) to ensure compliance for a further period of six months.

Conviction Must Rest on Certainty, Not Suspicion – Calcutta High Court Restores Sanctity of Criminal Justice Standards

The ruling in Alamgir Sk & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal sends a resounding message about the necessity of a fair, impartial and evidence-based prosecution in criminal trials. The prosecution’s reliance on hostile witnesses, unverified recoveries, and an implausible investigative chronology led the Court to apply the bedrock principle of benefit of doubt, preserving the fundamental requirement that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not presumed through conjecture.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025