Recently, the Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed on a man accused of murdering a political worker during a local election clash, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Division Bench found grave flaws in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and investigation, remarking that the trial judge had effectively “put words in the mouth of the said witness” while evaluating testimony.
Brief Facts:
The case arose out of a violent incident, when political worker Naimuddin Khan was allegedly shot dead during clashes that erupted while nomination papers were being filed for a local election in West Bengal. According to the prosecution, a group of armed individuals surrounded the deceased near a school premises and opened fire, resulting in his death. Baladeb Paul was later prosecuted and convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, and was awarded the death penalty, followed by a sentencing order. The matter reached the High Court through a death reference along with the convict’s appeal challenging both conviction and sentence. During appellate scrutiny, the High Court examined witness testimonies, investigative records, and procedural compliance, particularly with respect to sentencing guidelines governing capital punishment.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the trial court’s judgment was legally unsustainable due to serious defects in both the investigation and the appreciation of evidence. The Counsel submitted that key witnesses either failed to identify the accused or contradicted each other on material aspects of the incident. The defence highlighted that no firearm allegedly used in the murder was recovered, no ballistic examination report was produced, and even the exact place of occurrence remained uncertain. Further, the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were relied upon without examining the concerned magistrates, rendering them legally inadmissible. Counsel also contended that the trial court had disregarded binding precedents such as Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which mandates consideration of mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Counsel of the Respondent maintained that the conviction was supported by eyewitness testimonies that identified the accused as the person who fired the fatal shot. The Respondent relied on the depositions of several prosecution witnesses who allegedly saw the accused open fire on the deceased and argued that the collective evidence established the involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused acted as part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to murder the victim, and therefore the conviction deserved to be sustained. However, the prosecutor candidly conceded that the sentencing process might not have fully complied with the Supreme Court’s guidelines governing the imposition of capital punishment.
Observation of the Court:
The Bench noted that several witnesses cited by the trial court as eyewitnesses had in fact not implicated the accused at all, contradicting the trial judge’s findings. Referring to the testimony of a hostile witness, the Court observed that the trial court had misread the deposition and had effectively introduced facts not stated by the witness.
The Bench observed that the trial judge had “inserted many words stating that PW4 was present when accused Baldeb Paul shot the victim,” emphasising that a court cannot infer or fabricate statements by “putting words in the mouth of the said witness.”
The Court also identified serious investigative deficiencies. No firearm allegedly used in the crime was recovered, no empty cartridges were seized despite claims that several persons had fired shots, and the alleged bullet extracted from the body was not conclusively linked to the accused. Additionally, statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC were relied upon without examining the magistrates who recorded them, and even the contents of the inquest report were not admitted in evidence.
The Bench held that these were not minor discrepancies but “very serious” omissions that struck at the root of the prosecution’s case. The Court further noted that the case had political overtones and that most witnesses supporting the prosecution were politically affiliated with the deceased, warranting cautious evaluation of their testimony. The Bench was equally critical of the sentencing process. The Court held that the trial judge failed to collect or assess mitigating circumstances before imposing capital punishment.
Consequently, the High Court concluded that the death sentence had been imposed without proper judicial application of mind.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Calcutta High Court refused to confirm the death sentence and set aside both the conviction and sentence of Baladeb Paul, allowing the criminal appeal and rejecting the death reference. The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant if he was not required in any other case, while also directing that a copy of the judgment be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of appropriate corrective measures regarding the trial court’s handling of the case.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Baladeb Paul & Anr.
Case No.: Death Reference No. 8 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee, Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Adv. Rabi Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Adv. Suman Chatterjee, Adv. Bhattacharya, Adv. Trisha Rakshit, Adv. Rakshit, Adv. B. Chakraborty, Adv. S. Parveen,
Advocate for the Respondent: ld. P.P. Debasish Roy, Adv. Anasuya Sinha, Adv. Amita Gour,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
