Eyewitness contradictions, ballistic mismatches, and lack of forensic evidence lead to acquittal.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has overturned the conviction of Babai Sk., also known as Papai Sk., who was previously sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta, delivered the judgment on December 11, 2025, citing substantial inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence.
The case originated from an incident on January 7, 2015, when Subham Dey was shot and killed, and Sattya Sarkar was injured. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Babai Sk., was responsible for the crime, and he was subsequently convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Lalbagh, Murshidabad.
However, upon appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Key to the court's decision were contradictions between eyewitness testimonies and medical and ballistic reports. The ballistic evidence was particularly damaging to the prosecution's case, as the bullet recovered from the deceased did not match the firearm allegedly used by the appellant. Furthermore, medical reports did not corroborate the injuries claimed by the eyewitnesses.
The court also noted the prosecution's failure to establish the actual place of occurrence, as no forensic evidence such as bloodstains or cartridges was recovered from the alleged crime scene. Additionally, the absence of independent witnesses and discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts further weakened the prosecution's case.
In light of these findings, the court emphasized the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused when the prosecution's evidence is not conclusive. The judgment highlighted the importance of the presumption of innocence and reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal trials.
The court's decision to acquit Babai Sk. underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that convictions are based on solid and reliable evidence, safeguarding the rights of the accused while upholding the principles of justice.
Bottom Line:
Benefit of doubt in a criminal trial - Prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in evidence, contradictions between medical and ballistic reports, and failure to establish the place of occurrence.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 307, 324, 326; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 313, 437A (now BNSS, 2023 Section 481).
Babai Sk. @ Papai Sk. v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820930
