Evidence of 'Chance Witnesses' Not Inherently Suspicious If Presence and Conduct Are Explained: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Under S.302 IPC - 2025-09-14

Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Affirms Credibility of "Chance Witnesses"

Kolkata, West Bengal – The Calcutta High Court has dismissed the appeals of three men convicted for a 2012 murder, holding that the testimony of "chance witnesses" is reliable if their presence at the scene of the crime is properly explained and corroborated. A division bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta upheld the life sentences for Surajit Das (@ Narkel), Tinku Naskar (@ Poka), and Subrata Roy, who were found guilty under Sections 302 (Murder) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The court's judgment provides a detailed analysis of the principles governing the evidence of chance witnesses, procedural aspects of charge framing, and the admissibility of evidence recovered based on an accused's statement.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to July 16, 2012, when Prosenjit Roy was chased and shot dead in the early morning in the Lake Town area. The prosecution's case was built on the testimony of two key eyewitnesses, PW 10 Ahmed Ali (an auto-rickshaw driver) and PW 11 Md. Iqbal (a mason), who happened to be passing through the area at the time of the incident.

The Trial Court convicted the three appellants based on the strength of the eyewitness accounts, which were corroborated by forensic evidence, post-mortem reports, and the recovery of weapons. Three other accused, alleged to be part of a larger conspiracy, were acquitted due to a lack of reliable evidence against them. The convicted individuals subsequently appealed to the High Court.

---

Appellants' Arguments vs. High Court's Analysis

The appellants' counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Sudipta Moitra, raised several key legal challenges to the conviction, all of which were systematically addressed and rejected by the High Court.

1. On Defective Framing of Charges

The appellants argued that framing charges under Sections 302, 34, and 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC was inconsistent and invalidated the conviction. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. , clarified that a procedural irregularity in framing charges does not vitiate a trial unless it can be proven that the accused was misled and suffered prejudice, depriving them of a fair trial.

The bench noted:

"When an accused is represented by counsel in the Trial, and no objection as regards the framing of the charge is raised at the stage of the trial, it shall be deemed that the accused understood the purport of the charges... The Appellant has not argued or stated in course of the trial that he was misled... Thus, the argument against the framing of the charge has no substance."

2. On the Credibility of Chance Witnesses

A central plank of the defense was that the eyewitnesses, PW 10 and PW 11, were "chance witnesses" whose presence at the crime scene was not properly explained. The High Court found their testimony to be credible and well-supported.

The court observed that PW 10 (the auto driver) had explained he was taking a shortcut while on his way to pick up PW 11 (the mason) for a job. Their presence, subsequent conduct—reporting the matter to the police later that evening—and clear identification of the accused in a Test Identification (TI) Parade were deemed consistent and believable.

The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajesh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh , stating:

"The luxurious concept, where home is considered a castle, may not apply in our country, where, to earn a livelihood and to sustain a home, one may need to roam from one place to another in search of work... Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses... Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'."

The court concluded that the presence and conduct of PW 10 and PW 11 were "sufficiently and clearly explained" and their accounts were corroborated by other witnesses who heard the gunshots and saw the accused fleeing.

3. On Discrepancies and Recovery of Evidence

The defense pointed to minor inconsistencies between the inquest and post-mortem reports regarding the number of injuries. The court dismissed this, explaining that an inquest report's purpose under Section 174 of the CrPC is to ascertain the apparent cause of death, not to provide a precise medical account of injuries like a post-mortem report.

Regarding the recovery of firearms under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the appellants argued procedural lapses. The High Court, relying on State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil , held that it is not mandatory for a recovery memo to be attested by independent witnesses, and the testimony of the investigating officer can be considered on its own merit.

---

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's decision, concluding that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of the two eyewitnesses, corroborated by circumstantial and scientific evidence, formed an unbroken chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants.

The judgment reaffirms the legal position that the testimony of a chance witness, often crucial in cases of public crimes, should be evaluated based on its intrinsic credibility and explanatory power, rather than being dismissed outright. The bench's dismissal of the appeals ensures that Surajit Das, Tinku Naskar, and Subrata Roy will continue to serve their sentences for the 2012 murder.