Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has overturned the 2018 conviction of nine men in a 2009 murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove who fired the gunshot that killed the victim and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses.
The bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray ordered their release if they are not wanted in any other case. The case concerned the death of a woman on the night of December 1, 2009. According to the FIR lodged the next day, the victim’s minor son told relatives that several men had entered their house, damaged property and taken their mother outside after assaulting her. The trial court had relied primarily on the testimony of the victim’s two children, accepted as eyewitnesses, to convict the accused under murder and Arms Act charges.
The High Court found that while the autopsy confirmed a gunshot injury as the cause of death, the FIR did not mention any firing. The son’s statement before the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC also described firing but did not refer to sharp-cutting weapons, though his later trial deposition added such allegations.
The daughter’s deposition too differed from her earlier police statement. The medical evidence recorded no incised wounds, contradicting the children’s version of multiple sharp-weapon blows. The bench noted that the inconsistencies in the minors’ accounts required corroboration, but no local witness supported the prosecution.
The court also highlighted multiple lapses: the bullet was never recovered, no cartridge was found, there was no exit wound, and no ballistic examination was conducted to determine whether any seized firearm was linked to the fatal shot. Arms seized in an unrelated case were produced at trial without establishing their connection to the incident.
The court said the omission to seek an arms expert’s opinion was a “vital and serious mistake” and observed that there was no clear or consistent evidence identifying the person who fired the fatal shot.
While the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained, the unexplained three-day delay in forwarding it to the magistrate further weakened the prosecution.
Granting the appellants the benefit of doubt, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences.