Evidence of Chance Witnesses Reliable if Their Presence is Satisfactorily Explained; Minor Discrepancies Immaterial: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction - 2025-08-22

Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Affirms Reliability of Chance Witnesses

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentence for three men convicted of a brutal daylight murder in 2012, dismissing their appeals. A division bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta ruled that the testimony of "chance witnesses" is reliable and sufficient for conviction when their presence at the crime scene is credibly explained and corroborated by other evidence.

The Court rejected the appellants' arguments regarding defective charges, inconsistencies in witness accounts, and procedural lapses in the recovery of weapons, reinforcing key principles of criminal evidence evaluation.

Case Background

The appeal challenged the 2016 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore, which convicted Surajit Das alias Narkel, Tinku Naskar alias Poka, and Subrata Roy for the murder of Prosenjit Roy.

The prosecution's case was that on July 16, 2012, the three appellants chased the victim on a motorcycle in the Lake Town area. After both motorcycles fell, the victim attempted to flee on foot but was shot multiple times and died on the spot. The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, an auto-rickshaw driver (PW 10) and a mason (PW 11), who happened to be passing through the area.

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Sudipta Moitra, raised several legal challenges:

* Defective Charges: It was argued that framing charges for murder (S.302 IPC), common intention (S.34 IPC), and criminal conspiracy (S.120B IPC) simultaneously was inconsistent and invalidated the trial.

* Unreliable Chance Witnesses: The defense contended that the presence of the two eyewitnesses (PW 10 and PW 11) was improbable and their testimony, as "chance witnesses," should be discarded.

* Inconsistencies: The appellants pointed to alleged discrepancies between the inquest and post-mortem reports and minor variations in witness accounts regarding the exact location of the incident.

* Improper Recovery of Evidence: The procedure followed for the recovery of firearms under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was challenged as flawed.

The State, represented by Ld. A.P.P. Rana Mukherjee, argued that the eyewitness testimonies were consistent, credible, and fully corroborated by medical, ballistic, and circumstantial evidence.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously analyzed each defense argument and dismissed them, citing established legal precedents.

On the Reliability of Chance Witnesses

The bench held that the testimony of a chance witness cannot be dismissed merely because of their unexpected presence. The crucial test is whether their presence is natural and satisfactorily explained.

The Court observed, "It is a common occurrence among daily wage workers... to look for work and arrive thereat or at a pickup point early in the day. The presence of PWs 10 and 11, i.e. the chance witnesses, at the place of occurrence is clearly established."

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajesh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the bench noted that the concept of a "chance witness" is less rigid in India, where people often roam in search of a livelihood. The Court found the explanations of PW 10 and PW 11 for being in the area entirely plausible.

On Defective Framing of Charges

The Court rejected the argument that framing charges under Sections 302, 34, and 120B of the IPC was a fatal error. Relying on the landmark case of Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. , the bench clarified:

“An irregularity simplicitor, without anything more in the framing of the charge, will not vitiate the trial. The said irregularity has to be demonstrated... that such an irregularity has misled the accused and his counsel to believe in something which has deprived him of a fair trial.”

Since the appellants were represented by counsel and never raised objections during the trial, the Court concluded they understood the charges and suffered no prejudice.

On Minor Discrepancies

The Court deemed the alleged inconsistencies between the inquest and post-mortem reports as insignificant. It noted that an inquest report's purpose is to ascertain the apparent cause of death, not to provide a medically precise account of injuries. Similarly, minor variations in witness descriptions of the crime scene were held to be immaterial, as the core facts were consistently corroborated.

The Final Verdict

Finding no merit in the appeals, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of the two eyewitnesses was found to be clear, consistent, and strongly corroborated by:

* Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report confirmed death by four gunshot wounds.

* Ballistic Evidence: The expert report linked the recovered bullets and cartridges to the firearms seized from the appellants.

* Recovery of Weapons: The discovery of the murder weapons based on the appellants' disclosure statements was deemed lawful.

* Circumstantial Corroboration: Other local witnesses confirmed hearing gunshots and seeing assailants flee.

The Court dismissed the appeals (CRA 519 of 2016 and CRA 608 of 2016), thereby affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.