Conviction For Murder Cannot Rest On Unreliable Child Witness Testimony: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused In Dowry Death Case
The High Court set aside the conviction of the appellants after holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on unreliable and improperly tested child witness testimony, material contradictions in medical and ocular evidence, serious investigative lapses, and unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR.
The Calcutta High Court, while acquitting the accused in a dowry death case, held that a conviction for murder and cruelty cannot be sustained where the prosecution's case is riddled with contradictions, investigative lapses, unreliable child witness testimony, and inconclusive medical evidence.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, by which the appellants were convicted under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, while allowing the appeal, set aside the conviction, holding 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 a reasonable doubt”.
Background
The prosecution alleged that the victim died after being set on fire in her matrimonial home by the appellants. It was alleged that the incident followed demands for money and harassment. The Sessions Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, along with a sentence under Section 498A IPC.
The appellants challenged the conviction, contending that the prosecution's case was based primarily on unreliable child witnesses, unsupported allegations of harassment, and contradictory medical and investigative material.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted at the outset that the victim had died more than fourteen years after marriage and had been living separately from the in-laws for a considerable period. The statutory presumption under Section 304B IPC was therefore not attracted, and the prosecution was required to prove its case strictly on evidence.
The Court examined the testimony of the father of the victim and found that his evidence lacked corroboration, as he was not present at the place of occurrence and a key intermediary witness was not examined.
The Court found serious deficiencies in the treatment of child witnesses. It held that the preliminary examination of the child witnesses by the trial court was mechanical and inadequate, as the trial judge failed to record the questions put to the children or properly ascertain their understanding of truth, time, place, and events. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that such failure rendered the child witnesses only partly reliable.
The Court further noted material contradictions between the testimonies of the child witnesses, including inconsistencies regarding the manner in which the victim’s hands were allegedly tied and the sequence of events leading to the fire. The Court found the version of the children regarding the immediate arrival of the appellants at the scene to be highly improbable in light of undisputed evidence regarding distance and strained family relations.
The High Court also found that the conduct attributed to the accused after the incident—including attempts to extinguish the fire and take the victim to hospitals was inconsistent with the prosecution’s theory of intentional murder.
The Court placed considerable weight on the medical and investigative lapses. It noted that the wearing apparel of the victim was not produced before the post-mortem doctor, depriving the medical opinion of crucial material. The treating doctors were not examined, hospital records were not seized, and the medical evidence remained inconclusive regarding the manner of burning. The inquest and post-mortem reports also contradicted each other on the extent of burn injuries.
The Court observed that the inquest report did not name the appellants or record allegations of harassment, despite being prepared soon after the incident. The FIR, though lodged shortly thereafter, was forwarded to the Magistrate after an unexplained three-day delay. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that such omissions and delay cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case and suggested the possibility of afterthought.
The Court further held that several material witnesses, including local villagers and treating doctors, were withheld by the prosecution, thereby weakening its case.
On a cumulative assessment, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the participation or culpability of the appellants even remotely, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court.
The Court acquitted all the appellants and directed that those in custody be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, upon execution of bonds in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellants already on bail were directed to be discharged from their bail bonds after the statutory period.
All connected applications were disposed of, and the trial court records were directed to be transmitted for necessary compliance.
Cause Title: Sk. Morsed Ali & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:92-DB)
Appearances:
Appellants: Sudipto Maitra, Senior Advocate, Vijay Verma, Advocate, Dwaipayan Biswas, Advocate, Anik Bhattacharya, Advocate
Respondents: Debasish Roy, Public Prosecutor, Amita Gaur, Advocate