Cal HC acquits death row convict, rebukes trial court judge for ‘elementary mistakes’

Kolkata, Taking a stern view of a sessions court judge not following proper procedure in convicting and awarding death sentence to an accused, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday acquitted him of the charge of murder.

A division bench said that the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Arambagh in Hooghly district “had committed some basic and elementary mistakes”, and acquitted 18 others, sentenced to life imprisonment in the murder case of 2011.

The bench directed that a copy of its judgment, along with a copy of the trial court’s ruling, be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for deciding whether or not “corrective measures are required to be taken for guidance” of the said judge.

Holding that conviction of the death row convict Baladeb Paul is not sustainable, the bench comprising justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray observed that the prosecution relied upon evidence of interested witnesses only, and there is no corroborative evidence to support the deposition of such witnesses.

The bench directed that Paul be released from incarceration forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

The division bench also acquitted 18 other men who had also been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with the murder by the sessions court.

The division bench observed that it is the duty of the court trying an accused for a criminal offence to ensure that a conviction is ordered only when the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused on the basis of documentary and oral evidence admissible in law.

“The graver the charge, the greater the caution that the court must exercise, obviously because the consequences by way of punishment become harsher with the gravity of the charge,” the bench observed.

The prosecution claimed that there is no iota of doubt that Paul shot dead Naimuddin Khan, and at the time of the incident, the convict was being accompanied by other convicts after forming an unlawful assembly with the common object to murder the victim in December, 2011.

Appellant Paul’s counsels Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and Uday Shankar Chattopadhyay submitted that the trial court judgment is not sustainable in law since the framing of charge was not properly done for the offences allegedly committed by the death row convict.

They also stated that the death sentence is not sustainable in the eyes of law since several guidelines issued by the Supreme Court regarding imposition of death penalty were not at all discussed in the relevant judgments.

Setting aside the trial court judgment, the division bench noted that the weapon used for the murder was not recovered by the investigating officer and that the contents of the inquest report were withheld by the prosecution and were not made admissible in evidence.

The division bench also pointed out that the doctor who recovered the bullet from the body of the deceased had deposed that the bullet shown to him during the trial was not recovered from the body of the victim.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.