Calcutta HC rules 2013 burn death was murder, not suicide

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Thursday upheld the life sentence of Avijit Chatterjee, also known as Ramu, ruling that the 2013 death of Sanjay Halder—who suffered 98 per cent burns—was not suicide but murder committed by his landlord and associates.

A division bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed Chatterjee’s appeal against his 2017 conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast-Track Court-I, Sealdah, under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, Halder was attacked near his home at Thakurbagan in Beliaghata on the night of January 21, 2013. Chatterjee, his landlord, had allegedly been pressuring him to vacate the rented premises. The prosecution said Chatterjee and two others poured kerosene on Halder, and one of them set him on fire.

The trial court’s verdict was based largely on two dying declarations. In the first, recorded by a doctor at NRS Medical College and Hospital, Halder stated that “some persons” poured inflammable oil on him. Minutes later, in a second statement recorded by a police officer in the doctor’s presence, he named Chatterjee and two others, describing the sequence of events and identifying his landlord as a key attacker.

The defence argued that the declarations were inconsistent, that Halder was unconscious from intoxication and that the case was one of self-immolation. They also cited hostile testimony from Halder’s wife and son, who claimed he had previously threatened to kill himself.

The bench found the two declarations consistent in substance, both ruling out suicide and attributing the burns to an attack by others. The court said Halder was mentally alert when giving his statements, noting the doctor’s observation and the detailed personal and locational information he provided.

Rejecting the suicide theory, the court pointed to the absence of a matchbox or lighter at the scene, which it said was more consistent with an attack. It also held that pouring kerosene and setting the victim alight formed part of a single transaction, establishing common intention under Section 34 IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction and life term, ordered trial court records to be returned immediately, and disposed of the appeal.