Gaping Holes In Prosecution Case: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused In TMC Worker Murder Case; Sets Aside Death Sentence

The Division Bench noted that several prosecution witnesses were members or supporters of the same political party as the deceased and therefore qualified as “interested witnesses”. While such testimony is not automatically unreliable, the Court held that it required careful scrutiny, particularly in a case involving the death penalty.

Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed that the trial court had committed “basic and elementary mistakes” while analysing the evidence and had recorded findings that were not supported by the testimonies on record. The Court noted that the trial judge wrongly observed that several witnesses had seen the accused firing the fatal shot, even though many of those witnesses had either turned hostile or failed to identify the accused in court.

In a separate short judgment, Justice Arijijt Banerjee while agreeing with Justice Ray’s observations, categorically observed, “In a nutshell, there are huge gaps and gaping holes in the prosecution case, as well as in the judgment and order under appeal. My learned brother, towards the end of the judgment that he has authored, has tabulated the more glaring defects in the impugned judgment and order and to avoid prolixity I refrain from repeating the same. In my considered view, the learned Trial Judge has erred to a considerable extent in appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and in assimilating the evidence on record. I have no doubt in my mind that this is not a case where the prosecution can be said to have brought home the charges against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt”.

“The learned Trial Judge has not recorded the special reasons for imposing death sentence. There is no discussion as to why imprisonment for life would not be adequate punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not stated as to why the alleged offence shocked the conscience of the learned Judge to such an extent that he found nothing short of the ultimate punishment of death to be commensurate with the crime”, Justice Banerjee further observed.

Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya appeared for the appellant and Debasish Roy, P.P. appeared for the respondent.

The case pertained to the murder of Naimuddin, a political worker associated with the All India Trinamool Congress, who was allegedly shot dead during a clash in West Bengal on 09-12-2011 while he had gone to submit nomination papers for a local election.

The trial court had convicted the accused and imposed the death penalty, which subsequently came before the High Court for confirmation along with the appeal filed by the convict.

The Court after considering the evidences, pointed out several critical gaps in the prosecution case. The alleged firearm used in the crime was never recovered, no ballistic report was produced linking any weapon to the bullet recovered from the body, and investigators failed to seize empty cartridges from the scene despite allegations that multiple persons had fired weapons during the incident.

The Bench also found that the inquest report referred to the assailants as “unknown miscreants”, which contradicted later claims that the accused had been clearly identified at the spot. Moreover, the magistrates who recorded statements under Section 164 CrPC were not examined during trial, further weakening the evidentiary chain relied upon by the prosecution.

The Court further criticised the manner in which the trial court-imposed capital punishment. Referring to the sentencing principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470, the Bench observed that the trial court had failed to consider mitigating circumstances or collect any material regarding the accused’s socio-economic background, psychological condition, or possibility of reform.

The Court also referred to the guidelines laid down in Manoj and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353, which mandate that courts must gather detailed information about the accused before imposing the death penalty. In the present case, no such exercise had been undertaken, and the trial court had not recorded “special reasons” explaining why life imprisonment would be inadequate punishment, the Bench said.

“…the learned Judge was completely oblivious of the mandatory directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 250 of the judgment in the case of Manoj v. State of M.P., (Supra). Thus, even if I had upheld the conviction of the appellant, I would have commuted the death sentence in view of non-compliance with the directions in Manoj’s case, (Supra), and also because I have no doubt in my mind that this is not one of those rarest of rare cases which calls for imposition of capital punishment.”, Justice Banerjee remarked.

The Court, accordingly, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction and death sentence. The Bench directed that the appellant be released from custody if he was not required in connection with any other case.

The Court noting the serious flaws in the trial court’s reasoning, also directed that a copy of its judgment be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of appropriate administrative action regarding the errors identified in the trial judgment.

Cause Title: Baladeb Paul v. The State of West Bengal [Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:399-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Suman Chatterjee, A. R. Bhattacharya, Trisha Rakshit, S. Rakshit, B. Chakraborty, S. Parveen, Advocates.

Respondent: Debasish Roy, P.P., Anasuya Sinha, Amita Gour, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment