Calcutta High Court quashes life sentence of man in jail for over nine years

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has quashed the life sentence of a man, observing that he was not the perpetrator of the murder of his elder brother, after he spent more than nine years in custody.

A division bench of the court held that the prosecution "miserably failed" to form a chain of circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, much less prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

Observing that it is clear to the court that the appellant Ranadip Banerjee was not the perpetrator of the crime of murdering his elder brother, who had some neurological problems, the division bench presided by Justice Soumen Sen quashed his conviction by a lower court and ordered his release.

The bench said that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case revolving around circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused "beyond reasonable doubt".

Ranadip was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the additional sessions judge, 11th court at Alipore on May 25, 2017 in a murder case registered at Gariahat police station here on April 24, 2015 over the death of Sudip Banerjee.

The appellant's lawyer Soham Banerjee said that he was arrested on April 24, 2015 and was in custody since then.

The complainant was Joydeep Banerjee, the cousin brother of Ranadip, alleging murder of his elder cousin brother Sudip by the appellant.

Sudip lived in a house at Ballygunge Gardens, along with Ranadip, since 2009 after he separated from his wife and son.

Ranadip is a bachelor and unemployed, the court noted.

The division bench, also comprising Justice Uday Kumar, held in the judgement passed last month that the conviction was predicated on circumstantial evidence alone.

It observed that while circumstantial evidence is sufficient to return a conviction, this is possible if it contains all the links that connect the accused to the incident.

Holding that there are major discrepancies and inconsistencies going to the root of the matter, the bench said that in the instant case there is no eyewitness and that there are missing links to connect the appellant to the crime.

It said that the motive behind the murder against the appellant has also not been established and that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.

"It is extremely surprising if not baffling that the investigating officer did not record the statement of the immediate neighbours and tenants of the house where the two brothers lived or any other relative of the appellant to find out the relationship between the two brothers or whether in the past there was any attempt by Ranadip to kill his brother or that there were past incidents of any such physical assault on the victim," the court said.

Holding that the tenants would have been the best witnesses for the prosecution, the court said that it is unbelievable that when such an offence is committed, the tenants would not be aware of such assault or quarrel between the two brothers leading to murder.

One white iron-made water pipe, old pillow, white bed cover, all bearing blood stains, were seized by the police, but no forensic examination was done to ascertain whether the blood found on these matched that of the victim or whether fingerprints of the accused were present on it, the court noted.