Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, JJ.
Sajal Kanti Roy @ Subrata @ Subho and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRA No. 219 of 2018, CRAN No. 4 of 2025, CRAN No. 2 of 2019 (Old No. CRAN 4653 of 2019)
Decided On : 19-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeal process and sentences imposed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of the incident leading to the victim's injuries. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. eyewitness accounts of the shooting incident. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. identification of the shooters by the victim. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. details on the fir registration process. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. writ petitions and investigation transfer requests. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. court's analysis of the evidence presented. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 8. analysis of hearsay evidence and admissibility. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 9. credibility of the victim's dying declaration. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 10. nature and types of dying declarations. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 11. victim's mental state and its impact on testimony. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 12. post-mortem evidence corroborating witness testimonies. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 13. responses to defense arguments. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 14. issues raised about evidence collection and integrity. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77) |
| 15. final ruling and sentencing details. (Para 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.
1. The subject appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 26, 2018 and April 27 2018 respectively, passed by the Sessions Judge, Birbhum at Suri in Sessions Trial No. 04(01) 2015 arising out of the Session Case No. 148 of 2014.
2. The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. They were further directed to pay fine of Rs 1,00,000 (one lakh) each. In default thereof, they were to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
3. The appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence committed under Section 448 of the IPC. They were also directed to pay a fine of Rs 5000 (five thousand) each. In default thereof, they were to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 month each.
4. The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years for the offence committed under section 27 of the Arms Act. They were directed to pay a fine of Rs 50,000(fifty thousand) each. In default thereof, they were directed to suffer rigorous improvement for a period of 6 months.
5. The sentences were directed run concurrently. The Trial Court directed that if the aforesaid fine amount is realized from the appellants, the wife of the deceased Saraswati Ghosh shall be paid the said fine amount as compensation under section 357(1)/(b) of CRPC. The detention period already undergone by the appellants were directed to be set off against the aforesaid period of imprisonment
THE PROSECUTION CASE AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD
6. The victim, one Sagar Ghosh, received bullet injuries at his house on the night of July 22, 2013. At that time, he was with his wife, PW 14, Sarawati Ghosh and daughter-in-law, PW 15, Shibani Ghosh. The polling day for the said Panchayat election was scheduled on next day, 23 July 2013. Thus, a substantial police force and central force were deployed in the area. A number of police personnel serving in various state and central forces thus came to the house of the victim upon being intimated by the local Police station Panrui PS. The son of the victim Hriday Ghosh PW-19 was contesting as an independent candidate after being denied a ticket from the ruling political party of which he was a member.
7. The members of the ruling party based in the village of Bandhnabagram Panchayat were not comfortable and happy with PW 19 contesting as an independent candidate in the said Panchayat election. The appellants were the members of the said ruling party. They were canvassing for the candidate nominated by the said ruling party. PW 19 has deposed that he used to reside in the house of his sister away from home out of fear
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations and eyewitness testimonies are upheld as critical for establishing the identity of the assailants in murder cases involving political rivalry.
The reliability and consistency of dying declarations, along with the admissibility of medical evidence and the prosecution's obligation to produce evidence, were central to the court's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
