In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar D.R. No. 04 of 2024 With CRA (DB) 56 of 2024 Md. Abbas Vs.

The State of West Bengal For the appellant : Mr. Subham Ghosh, Mr. Mayank Roy, Mr. Subhranil Barman For the State : Ms. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP., Mr. Sourav Ganguly For the de facto Complainant : Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, Ms. Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury, Ms. Sunayana Parveen, Ms. Riya Agarwal, Mr. Bappaditya Roy, Mr. Mantu Mondal Heard on : 28.07.2025, 29.07.2025, 30.07.2025 Reserved on : 30.07.2025 Judgment on : 19.08.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present appeal and death reference arise out of the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), for both of which death sentence was awarded, under Section 363 of the IPC, for which rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months was awarded, and under Section 366 of the IPC, for which ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, was handed out. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the case are that the victim girl, who was about sixteen years of age and a school student at the time of her death, had gone to school on August 21, 2023. On her way back home, the appellant kidnapped the diseased, who was immature and a late learner, on his bicycle, took her to a lonely place at Motajote, on the land of one Samul Bagh‟s family, where he raped and murdered her brutally. According to the prosecution case, the appellant also tried to mutilate her face and head, apparently in a bid to foil the recognition of the victim.

3. PW 21 and ASI of police, who was posted at the Lexicon More on the said date from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., saw the appellant carrying the victim girl on his bicycle, taking her towards the place of occurrence (PO) between 4.30 and 4.45 p.m, when the girl was sitting on the carrier of the bicycle in her school uniform.

4. Subsequently, PWs 12 and 13, a minor girl Neha Modak and her aunt Minati Modak respectively, upon hearing certain sounds, went behind their residence and found the appellant at the PO, with the victim girl dead. Upon seeing them, the appellant escaped from the spot on his bicycle, after trying to cover his face with a handkerchief.

5. The appellant was arrested the very same night, that is, on August 22, 2023, at about 1.30 a.m. from his home, and produced before the learned ACJM at Siliguri.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that there was no inquest and preceding investigation under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). Learned counsel argues that, the mode, method and ultimate report prepared under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code was completely unlawful and manufactured. One ASI Prabir Roy (PW17) of the Matigara police station prepared an investigation report without intimation to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquest.

7. It is submitted that no inquest, as mandated under Section 176 of the Cr.P.C, forms part of the investigation, which vitiates the investigation.

8. Secondly, it is argued by the appellant that the purported chain of events leading to the offence was not established by the prosecution. It is argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was done. The offence occurred on August 21, 2023, whereas the appellant was identified on dock by the alleged eyewitnesses only on August 21, 2023, the dates being sparsely situated. It is argued that the lack of TIP vitiates the entire prosecution case.

9. In support of such contention, learned counsel cites Kannan vs. State of Kerala reported at (1979) 3 SCC 319, P. Sasikumar vs