Cal HC upholds life sentence in 2013 Kali Puja murder

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of three men convicted of murdering a local club president during Kali Puja celebrations in 2013, holding that repeated blows on vital parts of the body clearly established an intention to kill and that “mere protest” could not amount to provocation.

A division bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed two criminal appeals arising out of the killing of Pintu Biswas at Ashok Nagar on November 2, 2013. The victim, who was president of a local club organising Kali Puja, had objected to a group of youths bursting firecrackers, leading to an altercation.

According to the prosecution, Sekhar Kirtania struck the victim multiple times on the head and neck with a chopper. After he fell, he was further assaulted with a shovel and bricks.

The post-mortem recorded ten injuries, including deep incised wounds cutting into the skull, fractures, and extensive internal haemorrhage.

The doctor opined that the injuries were homicidal and consistent with assault by a chopper and shovel.

The court relied on the testimony of the victim’s wife and daughter, the latter an eyewitness who was present throughout the incident. Their statements before a magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC were proved during the trial. The bench held that their evidence, read with the medical findings and inquest report, established the prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt.

Rejecting the defence plea to alter the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the court observed that four consecutive strikes with a chopper on the head and neck could not be described as an act arising from sudden provocation. “Mere protest by the victim cannot be construed as a provocation,” the bench noted.

The defence had also pointed to alleged criminal cases pending against the victim and lapses in investigation, including non-production of a forensic report.

The court held that minor investigative omissions could not override consistent eyewitness and medical evidence. It further observed that under Section 53 of the Evidence Act, the character of a victim is not relevant to determine the guilt of the accused and that no one is entitled to take the law into their own hands.