Prosecution Failed To Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Serious Gaps Found In Prosecution Evidence
The Calcutta High Court has acquitted Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. in a 2013 murder case, setting aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Trial Court after holding that the prosecution evidence suffered from irreconcilable contradictions and failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contradictory Evidence And Forensic Mismatch
The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for the murder of Subham Dey @ Ganju and for causing injuries to the deceased’s father and an employee, Sattya Sarkar, relying mainly on the testimony of two injured eyewitnesses and the alleged recovery of a firearm pursuant to a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The High Court, however, found multiple fundamental flaws in the prosecution case. A key explanation for acquittal was the ballistic expert’s opinion that the bullet recovered from the deceased’s head did not match the barrel or calibre of the firearm allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant. The Court held that this forensic inconsistency demolished the recovery theory, which formed a core link in the prosecution’s chain of circumstances.
Injured Eyewitnesses Not Reliable
- One injured sees a gunshot injury resulting in broken teeth, whereas the medical evidence categorically ruled out any gunshot injury or bullet remnants.
- Another injured witness claimed assault with the butt of a firearm, while medical records reflected a sharp-cut injury, consistent with a knife that was never recovered.
These inconsistencies, the Court held, struck at the root of the prosecution narrative and rendered the eyewitness version unreliable.
Place Of Occurrence Not Established
The Court further observed that the prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence, noting the absence of bloodstains, bullet marks, cartridges, or any forensic material from the alleged scene of crime. In the absence of a clearly established locus criminis, the prosecution version remained speculative.
Benefit of Doubt
Reiterating settled principles of criminal law, the Bench observed that if any reasonable doubt arises regarding the involvement of the accused, the benefit must necessarily go to the accused. It emphasised that a reasonable doubt is not imaginary or trivial, but one based on logic, common sense, and the overall assessment of evidence.
Decision
Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.R.A. 9 of 2018 and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Case Details
Case Title: Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. v. State of West Bengal
Case No.: C.R.A. 9 of 2018
Court: Calcutta High Court
Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Decision Date: 11 December 2025