Calcutta High Court acquits in- laws in murder case after 10 yrs

Kolkata: Nearly ten years after a trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment in a burn-death case, the Calcutta High Court has acquitted the accused in-laws, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta set aside the conviction, citing serious lapses in investigation, unreliable child witness testimony, contradictions in medical and inquest evidence, and non-examination of crucial witnesses.

The accused had been convicted in January 2016, while the High Court delivered its judgment acquitting them on January 20, 2026.

The prosecution alleged that the woman was set on fire after kerosene was poured on her following demands for money. The trial court convicted the accused for murder and cruelty and imposed life imprisonment. However, the High Court noted that the death occurred more than 14 years after the marriage and that the woman had been living separately from her in-laws for over 13 years.

Prosecution case largely relied on the testimony of two minor sons of the deceased. The court found that the trial court failed to properly record the preliminary examination to assess whether the children understood the duty of speaking the truth, making appellate scrutiny impossible. The Bench held that the exercise was mechanical, rendering the testimony only partly reliable, and noted contradictions in the children’s accounts on whether the victim’s hands were tied with a saree or a rope and on the sequence of events preceding the fire.

The court found the medical evidence inconclusive. The autopsy doctor stated that he could not determine whether the death was homicidal, particularly as the victim’s burnt clothing was not supplied for examination. The inquest report did not name any accused or record allegations of harassment or assault, and contradictions were noted between the inquest officer and the post-mortem doctor on the extent of burn injuries. Neither document recorded any indication that the victim’s hands had been tied.

The Bench further held that doctors who initially treated the victim at two hospitals were not examined and that hospital records, including bed-head tickets, were neither seized nor produced. Local witnesses were also not examined. Noting that the inquest was conducted without naming the accused and that the FIR was produced before the magistrate only after several days without explanation, the court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and ordered the release of the accused, subject to execution of bonds as required under law.