Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta has set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellants in a case concerning the alleged burning death of a married woman, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The Court directed that the appellants be set at liberty, with those in custody to be released subject to execution of a bond and those on bail to be discharged after the stipulated period. It found that the prosecution case was weakened by inconsistencies in the evidence, doubts about the child witness account, investigative lapses, and omissions in the inquest material regarding the alleged involvement of the appellants.

The criminal appeal concerned the conviction of the appellants for offences relating to cruelty and murder arising from the death of a married woman who sustained burn injuries at her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who were the in-laws of the deceased, subjected her to cruelty in connection with a monetary demand and ultimately caused her death by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire.

Also Read: Insurers Must Exercise Highest Professionalism And Diligence In Vetting Claim History Before Accepting Policy Portability: Bombay High Court

It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 25,000 was demanded from the deceased and her parental family, and upon failure to meet the demand, the incident occurred. The deceased had been married for approximately fourteen years at the time of her death and had been residing separately from her in-laws for several years.

The trial court convicted the appellants under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment, including life imprisonment, with sentences directed to run concurrently. The prosecution relied upon oral testimony of family members, including child witnesses, as well as inquest and post-mortem reports.

The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that the statutory presumption applicable to dowry death was not attracted, that the evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, that crucial witnesses including medical witnesses were not examined, and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses. The appeal required the High Court to examine whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence on record.

The Court observed that “the victim died of burns 14 years after marriage and was living separately from her in-laws for more than 13 years”. It further observed that “the presumption under Section 304B is attracted if the victim dies within 7 years of marriage” and therefore held that “the prosecution was required to prove each and every detail of the facts against the appellants”.

While assessing the evidence of the father of the deceased, the Court stated that “the evidence of PW 1 is not of much value without corroboration”, noting that he was not present at the place of occurrence and that a material witness who allegedly informed him was not examined during trial.

On the issue of child witnesses, the Court recorded that “the preliminary examination, conducted by the trial judge is wholly inadequate and mechanical”. It noted that “the above extract from the deposition… does not indicate the exact questions that were put to PW 2 by the trial judge” and further recorded that “the trial judge has not ascertained the sense and knowledge of the minor witness about the place, day and time”.

The Court observed that “the trial judge was under an obligation to ascertain whether the minor witness knows that he has to depose truthfully before the Court” and that the failure to do so rendered the testimony only partly reliable.

While examining the version of events narrated by the child witness, the Court noted contradictions and improbabilities, observing that “the lack of clarity in the evidence of PW 2 on this score renders his eye witness account of the appellants having set the victim on fire unreliable”.

On the question of the presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence, the Court observed that “it was not possible for the in-laws of the victim to immediately arrive at the PO” given the distance and admitted strained relations.

With regard to medical and documentary evidence, the Court recorded that “the medical evidence has remained inconclusive on the procedure by which the body of the victim was put on fire”. It further observed that “the inquest report is silent on whether the hands of the victim were tied” and that “the post mortem report has not stated whether there was any marks in the hands of the victim”.

The Court noted contradictions between the inquest officer and the post-mortem doctor regarding the extent of burn injuries and observed that “the prosecution case is further tainted” by the non-seizure and non-production of hospital records and the non-examination of treating doctors.

On the FIR, the Court recorded that “the FIR was presented before the jurisdictional magistrate only on the 7th of May, 2012, ie 3 days after its registration”, and held that this delay cast serious doubt on the prosecution version.

The Court observed that “the chain of circumstances is not even remotely complete” and that “the prosecution has not been able to establish the culpability or participation of the appellants in the death of the victim, even remotely, much less beyond reasonable doubt”.

Also Read: Oral Dying Declaration Can Sustain Conviction Despite Probe Lapses; Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Panchayat-Poll Eve Murder Case

The Court directed that “the said impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants shall stand set aside. All the appellants shall be set at liberty. The appellants, who are in jail, shall be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case, upon execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the Trial Court” and clarified that “the said bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure”.

 The appellants, who are already in bail, shall be discharged from their bail bonds after expiry of six months in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. CRA 130 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of” and further directed that “consequently, all connected pending applications, if any, are also disposed of”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Sudipto Maitra, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vijay Verma; Mr. Dwaipayan Biswas; Mr. Anik Bhattacharya
For the State: Mr. Debasish Roy, Public Prosecutor; Ms. Amita Gaur

Case Title: Sk. Morsed Ali & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal
Neutral Citation: 2026: CHC-AS:92-DB
Case Number: C.R.A. 130 of 2016
Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta