Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 354
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
The State of West Bengal - Appellant
Vs.
Promothesh Ghosal - Respondent
D.R. 5 of 2024 With C.R.A. (DB) No. 71 of 2025
Decided On : 14-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Soumajit Das Mahapatra, Ms. Sonali Das, Mr. Dipankar Saha
For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P., Mr. Anand Keshari, Ms. Snigdha Saha
The court affirmed that extra judicial confessions corroborated by multiple witnesses establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in the commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment considering the convict's age and lack of prior offenses.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 106 and 313 - Conviction for triple murder - Convict charged with murdering his parents and sister; evidence included extra judicial confessions corroborated by multiple witnesses - Prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite defense claims of inadequate evidence and contradictions - Sentence of death commuted to life imprisonment based on lack of criminal antecedents and age of convict. (Paras 45, 51)
(B) Extra Judicial Confessions - Validity and requisite corroboration - Multiple witnesses confirmed extra judicial confessions made by convict, establishing a strong case for prosecution despite defense contradictions. (Paras 39, 41)
Facts of the case:
The convict was charged with the murder of his parents and sister on November 8, 2021, and was found injured at the scene with the victims in bleeding condition; evidence included witness testimonies and medical reports confirming the murders. (Paras 10, 17, 19)
Findings of Court:
Convict's involvement in the triple murder was established firmly; superior evidence against him warranted conviction under Section 302 IPC, and the absence of mitigating factors led to commutation of death penalty to life imprisonment. (Paras 45, 51)
Issues: The court addressed the validity of extra judicial confessions and the adequacy of evidence presented by the prosecution, including the convict's conduct and background. (Paras 10, 49)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction emphasizing established guilt, considering the convict's age and lack of prior criminal history in deciding to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. (Paras 45, 51)
Result: Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld; death penalty commuted to life imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Death reference and the appeal are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 27(8) 2022 arising out of Sessions Case No. 89 of 2022 convicting the convict under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing the convict to death.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the convict draws the attention of the Court to the FIR as also the inquest report. He submits that the inquest report does not speak of any of the so-called extra judicial confession being made although one of the witnesses to the inquest claimed that the convict made such extra judicial confession as the prosecution witness.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the convict refers to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and submits that the so-called extra judicial confessions cannot be relied upon. Moreover, he refers to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and submits that the place of occurrence was such that it was open to other persons to enter and exit the place of occurrence. He refers to the sketch map which was marked as exhibit at the trial. He submits that such sketch map itself will show that persons other than the convict could enter and exit the place of occurrence.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the convict submits that the place of occurrence was not adequately drawn up in accordance with the provisions of law. Moreover, referring to the sketch map itself, he submits that relevant witnesses who were present to the place of occurrence were not examined although prosecution relied upon evidence of a person who was residing across the road.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the convict submits that the so-called offending weapons were not recovered or seized pursuant to the statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the convict refers to the statements made by some of the prosecution witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and submits that there are contradictions between the contents of those statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the testimony at the trial.
7. Learned advocate appearing for the convict submits that a doctor and a nurse being over jealous claimed that the convict made extra judicial confessions. However, the injury report of the convict does not speak of any extra judicial confessions being made.
8. Learned advocate appearing for the convict draws the attention of the Court to the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses including that of the Investigating Officer and submits that the prosecution failed to establish any of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Learned Public Prosecution appearing for the State submits that the convict was found at the place of occurrence in a bleeding condition along with the three dead bodies. Relationship between the persons murdered and the convict is that of parents and siblings. Convict was found with the dead bodies of his parents along with the married sister at their residence. Convict himself was found in an injured condition.
10. Learned Public Prosecution submits that it is for the convict to explain his conduct under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. He draws the attention of the Court to the statements of the convict recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and submits that the convict did not offer any explanation as also to the three murders taking place.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the convict made extra judicial confessions made to several persons who corroborated each other at the trial. Taking that into consideration, and the fact that the convict failed to discharge his onus under the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the convict committed the murder.
12. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in response to a query of the Cou
