Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Calcutta, Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed an appeal and upheld the conviction and life sentence of two accused for the murder of a villager who was shot inside his home on the eve of Panchayat elections. The Court accepted the victim’s spontaneous oral dying declaration, made immediately after the shooting and heard by family members, as reliable evidence forming part of the same transaction and indicating the cause and circumstances of death. It held that investigative lapses and procedural irregularities did not displace credible witness testimony and medical evidence establishing the accused persons’ guilt.

The criminal appeal arose from a conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge, Birbhum, in a case relating to a fatal shooting that occurred on the night preceding a Panchayat election. The prosecution case was that the victim sustained multiple bullet injuries inside his residence when armed assailants arrived, allegedly posing as police personnel. The incident took place in the presence of close family members, who later testified as eyewitnesses.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCLAT DG-Probe Direction, Asks Tribunal To Take Fresh Decision On Whether Competition Act Probe Is Needed Against Flipkart

According to the prosecution, the assailants fired through a grill gate after scaling the boundary wall of the house. Medical evidence showed firearm injuries, and post-mortem findings confirmed that death was homicidal. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts, medical testimony, forensic examination of bullets and cartridges, and the oral dying declaration made by the victim immediately after being shot.

The defence challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including alleged deficiencies in investigation, contradictions in witness statements, delay in recording statements under Section 164 of the CrPC, absence of written dying declaration, and alleged lack of visibility at the place of occurrence. It was also contended that subsequent complaints alleged coercion by police during the initial stages of investigation. The appellants denied their presence at the scene and pleaded false implication.

The Division Bench examined the eyewitness testimonies and recorded that “PW 14 and 15 are clearly the eyewitnesses to the presence of the appellant nos. 1 and 2 at the PO on the fateful night.” It observed that “PW 14 has heard the voice of the appellant no.2” and that “PW 15 has, inter alia, seen the appellants surrounding the house of the victim.”

On the evidentiary value of the victim naming the assailants immediately after being shot, the Court stated that “the evidence of the PW 14 and PW 15 that the victim took the names of the appellants after he was shot falls under the exception to the hearsay evidence.” It further recorded that “the naming by the victim of the appellants is a natural response given by a person who has suffered bullets from persons he knows.”

While analysing the oral dying declaration, the Bench observed that “the oral dying declaration of the victim, which he made just after he suffered the first bullet, is more reliable than any other declarations.” The Court noted that “the victim did not have any time to conjure up the names of the appellants or reason to falsely implicate them.”

Addressing the defence argument regarding mental fitness of the victim, the Court recorded that “the medical evidence has established that the victim, though in pain, was fully conscious.” On visibility at the scene, it observed that “when the assailants could zero down on the victim and fire bullets at him, it follows that the victim and his assailants could equally see each other.”

With respect to investigative lapses, the Court stated that “these are serious irregularities on the part of both the State police and CID WB,” but clarified that “the same cannot negate the conviction of the appellants in view of the overwhelming evidence against them.”

The Bench also noted that “the appellants in their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC have not taken any alibi or plea that they were not present at the PO.”

The Court directed that “CRA 219 of 2018 and all connected applications stand dismissed” and ordered that “the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned Trial Court is upheld.”

“The appellants shall undergo the imprisonment as imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by us” and that “the appellants shall pay the fine amount, as imposed by the Trial Court as stated above. They shall pay the fine within one month from today. The said fine amount shall be paid to the wife of the victim and the daughter-in-law of the victim” and clarified that “the total fine amount shall be equally divided between PW 14 and PW 15,” thereby modifying the trial court direction “to this extent.”

Also Read: Termination Of Probationer Based On Misconduct Allegations Is Punitive; Cannot Be Done Without Enquiry: Calcutta High Court

"The appellants shall surrender before the jurisdictional Trial Court, if on bail,” and that “the jurisdictional police shall otherwise take the custody of the appellants and produce them before the Jurisdictional Trial Court. The Trial Court shall ensure that the appellants serve the remainder of their jail imprisonment.”

"The Trial Court shall ensure that the appellants pay the fine as stated above within 30 days from the date of the judgment. If the appellants are not willing to pay or fail to pay the fine within the said 30 days, the State is directed to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakhs as compensation to the wife of the victim, PW 14 and the daughter-in-law of the victim, PW 15. The said 5 lakhs shall be equally divided between them,” and that “in the absence of either of the two due to death or otherwise, full Rs 5 lakhs shall be paid to the survivor.”

"The jurisdictional Trial Court is directed to apply before the concerned authority of the State upon the failure of the appellants to pay the fine for the State to process the payment of the said Rs 5 lakhs. The State shall take recourse to the applicable jail rules and laws to recover the fine amount from the appellants,” with the clarification that “the State shall only recover the amount of money from the appellant imposed as a fine.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants:  Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Advocate; Mr. Bhaskar Seth, Advocate; Mr. Avik Biswas, Advocate; Ms. Sarnali Saha, Advocate

For the Respondent (State):  Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Additional Public Prosecutor; Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Advocate

Case Title: Sajal Kanti Roy @ Subrata @ Subho & Anr. v. State of West Bengal
Case Number: C.R.A. 219 of 2018
Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta