Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 700

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Sushil Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
CRA 202 of 2019
Decided On : 11-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Amitava Karmakar, Adv., Mr. Mahadeb Khan, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Debabrata Chatterje, Adv. Ms. Mausumi Sarkar, Adv., Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, Adv.

The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the respondents for murder and cruelty, lacking compelling evidence and relying on questionable testimonies.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 302, 201, 34 - Acquittal of respondents in a case of alleged murder and cruelty - The victim was married to respondent No. 2 and was reportedly subjected to abuse, culminating in her death from burns - Evidence overwhelmingly questioned by defense, leading to failure of prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 2, 15, 60)

(B) Evidence Act - Section 106 - The burden of proof does not shift to the accused unless the prosecution establishes a prima facie case - The court noted the prosecution's failure to provide compelling evidence for conviction on the charges filed. (Paras 62, 64)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the acquittal of his daughter's in-laws for allegedly committing murder and harassment, alleging a history of abuse leading to the victim's fatal injuries on June 19, 2012. Prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found prosecution failed to prove murder or physical/mental cruelty; testimonies of child witnesses did not inspire confidence, and contradictions were evident in the evidence presented.

Issues: The court evaluated whether the victim was subjected to cruelty, whether murder was committed, and if the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests squarely with the prosecution and reiterated the standards required for evidence from child witnesses.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the appeal and the initial case facts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution's reliance on witness testimony and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 11)
3. witness accounts of victim's treatment and condition. (Para 7 , 12 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 28)
4. findings from the medical evidence regarding cause of death. (Para 50 , 51 , 60)
5. credibility of witness testimonies and implications on case. (Para 55 , 56 , 58)
6. legal standards for acquitting defendants. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
7. final order and judgment on the appeal. (Para 68 , 69)

Judgment :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order of acquittal dated January 13, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No. 01 (08) of 2015 arising out of Sessions Case No. 39(04) of 2013 acquitting the private respondents of charges under Section 498A/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the daughter of the appellant was married to the respondent No. 2. The daughter of the appellant subsequent to her marriage had lived in her matrimonial home along with other members of the family of the in-laws. The daughter of the appellant had been continuously abused at her matrimonial home. On June 19, 2012, the private respondents had assaulted the daughter of the appellant and set her on fire. Appellant had lodged a First Information Report on June 19, 2012 under Section 498A/302/34 of the India Penal Code 1860. Police had submitted chargesheet under Section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as against the Private respondents. Jurisdictional Court had framed charges against the private respondent under Section 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, prosecution had examined 15 witnesses at the trial. Although, there were no eye-witnesses to the incident, prosecution had based its case on circumstantial evidence and child witness testimony.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of PWs 2, 5 and 11. He has contended that, from the evidence of PW 2, it would appear that, there were injury marks on the body of the victim. PW 5, the minor daughter had stated in her evidence that the victim was lying on the floor and the hands and legs of the victim were tied. Furthermore, the respondent No. 2 had told the grandmother in presence of PW 5 that respondent No. 2 had killed the victim.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of the doctor conducting the post mortem being PW 11. He has stated that, PW 11 opined that, the death was homicidal in nature.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, learned Trial Judge while recording the impugned judgment and order of acquittal relied upon the medical treatment sheet but did not consider the post mortem report. Learned Trial Judge has failed to evaluate the evidence of the doctor being PW 11. Learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW 5 and 6. Moreover, the incident had taken place within the four walls of the matrimonial house of the victim and the respondent No. 2 as the husband is to explain the death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act which the respondent No. 2 has failed to discharge.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon 2025 INSC 261 ( The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh ) on the issue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to 6 has contended that, the prosecution had relied upon the evidence of PW 11, the post mortem doctor as well as the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 to claim that, the death was homicidal in nature. He has referred to the evidence of defence witness (DW 2) in support of the contention that, the opinion in the post mortem report was wrong