Cal HC upholds life term, calls Birbhum murder 'cold-blooded'

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of four family members for the murder of an elderly man in Birbhum, describing the crime as a “cold-blooded” and “pre-planned killing” driven by greed for his property and financial assets.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay dismissed the appeal against a 2016 trial court conviction, finding that the son, daughter, daughter-in-law and son-in-law acted together to murder the victim inside his own house.

The incident dates back to December 2011, when the victim was found in the toilet of his home with his throat slit. His son initially claimed that he had died by suicide using a kitchen cutting tool, but a relative grew suspicious and lodged a police complaint.

Medical evidence ruled out suicide. The autopsy revealed a deep, forceful cut across the neck severing vital vessels and the windpipe. The court noted that the injury was homicidal, inflicted with significant pressure, and that the victim had offered no resistance.

The court found that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing to guilt. Evidence showed ongoing disputes within the family over money from land sale, bank deposits and investments. The victim had intended to leave his assets to his grandchildren, which ran contrary to the wishes of the accused.

Neighbours testified that the daughter and son-in-law were seen entering the house on the night of the incident. The court held that all four accused were inside the house at the time, making it a case of the victim being “last stayed together” with them.

A key link was the recovery of the murder weapon — a ‘boti’ — from a nearby pond at the instance of two of the accused, showing their knowledge of how the weapon was disposed of. The court also relied on the conduct of the son, who tried to mislead relatives by suggesting suicide.

Holding that the murder took place inside the house, the court said the accused were under a duty to explain how it occurred. Their failure to do so further strengthened the prosecution case. The court directed that the convicts be taken into custody to serve their sentence.