When Identity of Victim is Doubtful, Prosecution’s Entire Case Must Fall: Calcutta High Court

Second FIR on Same Facts Impermissible Under Law: , Calcutta High Court addressing grave procedural lapses and evidentiary flaws in a murder trial. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, emphatically stating that "serious doubts in the identity of the victim and procedural irregularities vitiate the entire trial." The decision reiterates critical principles on fair investigation, further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, and the need for credible evidence.

The case arose from the discovery of an unidentified dead body on November 2, 2011, at Raigachi Chotopole under Rajarhat PS, Kolkata. Initially treated as a case of unnatural death, no identification could be made despite attempts. A closure report was filed in March 2012. However, upon receipt of an anonymous call in May 2013 claiming identification of the deceased as Dinu Ali Baidya @ Sambhu, a second FIR was lodged at Baguihati PS in July 2013. Eleven accused were tried, and nine were convicted based on testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses recorded years after the incident.

The High Court identified multiple fundamental flaws in the case. On the issue of registration of a second FIR, the Court held: "There is procedural impropriety in the registration of the 2nd FIR since a Magistrate under the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC can at best order further investigation, not a fresh FIR on the same facts."

Citing State of Tamil Nadu v. Hemendhra Reddy (2023) 16 SCC 779, the Court clarified: "Even after acceptance of the final report, further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC without recalling the acceptance order; but a second FIR is impermissible."

Further, the Court questioned the very foundation of the prosecution due to the "unproven identity of the victim." It noted: "The heart of this matter is the identity of the victim. When the identification of the body is in doubt, the prosecution case must fall flat on this ground alone."

Reliance was placed on Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka (2024) 4 SCC 735, emphasizing that improper or doubtful identification fatally wounds the prosecution.

The Court also observed: "The story of anonymous identification remained a mystery; neither the caller’s identity was investigated nor linked to the victim, inviting adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act."

Regarding the alleged eyewitnesses, the Court severely criticized their conduct and testimonies: "The fact that the four eyewitnesses remained silent for two years after witnessing a murder is unnatural and renders their credibility highly suspect."

It was noted that their statements under Section 164 CrPC were recorded after an unexplained delay of two years. Citing Natthu Singh v. State of U.P. (2023 SCC Online SC 78), the Court reiterated: "Inordinate delay in recording witness statements without satisfactory explanation renders such testimonies unreliable."

The medical evidence was found to be inconsistent with the eyewitness accounts. The Court stressed: "There is glaring inconsistency between the depositions and the medical evidence; no ocular testimony can override clear medical improbability."

Severe chest injuries found in the post-mortem were not explained by the eyewitnesses’ version of simple strangulation, making the evidence "untrustworthy and tainted."

The Calcutta High Court, finding "serious procedural impropriety, lack of credible evidence, and an unproven identity of the deceased," acquitted all the appellants. The Court observed: "Criminal prosecution must be based on credible, cogent evidence, not on conjectures and parrot-like testimonies manufactured after undue delay."

Date of Decision: 28th April 2025