Calcutta High Court Reduces Sentences in 2006 Death Case, Notes Weapons Alone Don’t Prove Intent to Kill

Court Invokes Sudden Fight Provision While Modifying Convictions

MP, Kolkata, 8 December 2025: The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere presence of sharp weapons such as a sickle or sword does not by itself establish an intention to kill, while modifying the convictions of the appellants in a 2006 orchard clash in Uttar Dinajpur and reducing their sentences to ten years.

The division bench of Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta examined the circumstances surrounding the death of Sudhir Singha, who suffered a head injury during an altercation inside a mango orchard on 27 May 2006 and died three days later while undergoing treatment. Several members of his family were also injured during the incident.

The court recorded that the appellants had entered the orchard amid a dispute over ownership and were plucking raw mangoes when Sudhir and his relatives intervened. Witnesses described the use of a hasua (sickle), sword and lathis during the confrontation. The bench observed that although sharp weapons were present, the injuries indicated a sudden fight rather than a premeditated assault. It noted that only a single sickle blow was inflicted on Sudhir and that vital organs were not targeted.

Relying heavily on the evidence of injured eyewitnesses, the court held that their presence at the scene was unquestionable and that minor inconsistencies in their accounts were natural and did not undermine the prosecution’s core version. The judges also noted deficiencies in the investigation, including delayed recording of certain statements and omissions in collecting some medical papers, but held that these lapses did not negate the substantive oral and medical evidence.

Concluding that the prosecution had not proved intention to cause death, the High Court invoked the legal framework of a sudden fight and modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. It sentenced the appellants to ten years’ imprisonment, directing that the period already spent in custody be set off.

The court further ordered that the appellants on bail must surrender forthwith or be taken into custody to serve the remainder of the sentence. It directed the trial court to act on the order immediately and supply urgent certified copies of the judgment if sought. The appeal was allowed in part and disposed of.