The Calcutta High Court on Thursday acquitted a man who had been sentenced to death and 18 others who were serving life imprisonment in connection with a 2011 murder case, sharply criticising the trial court for serious procedural lapses. The division bench held that the conviction was unsustainable due to fundamental errors in the trial process and lack of reliable corroborative evidence.
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray set aside the conviction of Baladeb Paul, who had been awarded the death penalty by the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Arambagh in Hooghly district.
The High Court observed that the trial court had committed “some basic and elementary mistakes” while convicting the accused and imposing the death sentence. The bench also acquitted 18 other men who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the same case.
Directing immediate release of Paul, the court ordered that he be freed from custody if he is not required in any other case.
The bench further directed that a copy of its judgment, along with the trial court’s ruling, be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court. The purpose of the reference is to decide whether “corrective measures are required to be taken for guidance” of the concerned sessions judge.
Examining the evidence, the High Court held that the prosecution’s case relied solely on testimonies of interested witnesses and lacked independent corroboration. The court noted that the evidence placed on record did not meet the standard required for sustaining a conviction, particularly in a case involving capital punishment.
Emphasising the responsibility of courts in criminal trials, the bench observed that a conviction must only be recorded when the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused based on legally admissible oral and documentary evidence.
“The graver the charge, the greater the caution that the court must exercise, obviously because the consequences by way of punishment become harsher with the gravity of the charge,” the bench said.
According to the prosecution, Baladeb Paul had allegedly shot dead Naimuddin Khan in December 2011. It was claimed that Paul was accompanied by others who had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the victim.
However, Paul’s counsel Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and Uday Shankar Chattopadhyay argued before the High Court that the trial court judgment was legally flawed. They contended that the charges had not been properly framed against Paul for the offences alleged.
The defence also submitted that the death penalty could not be sustained as the trial court had failed to consider several guidelines issued by the Supreme Court regarding the imposition of capital punishment.
While reviewing the case record, the High Court found several shortcomings in the prosecution’s evidence. It noted that the weapon allegedly used in the murder had never been recovered by the investigating officer.
The court also observed that the prosecution had withheld the contents of the inquest report, which were not produced as admissible evidence during the trial.
Additionally, the bench highlighted discrepancies in the medical evidence. The doctor who had recovered a bullet from the victim’s body testified that the bullet shown to him during the trial was not the one extracted from the deceased.
In light of these deficiencies and procedural lapses, the High Court concluded that the conviction recorded by the sessions court could not be sustained, leading to the acquittal of all the accused.
