Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Convictions in 1985 Assault-Death Case

Soumyadip Mullick, MP, 15 Feb 2026,  Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of multiple appellants in a 1985 assault case that had resulted in a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that serious contradictions in witness testimony and investigative lapses rendered the trial court’s judgment unsustainable.

Allowing the criminal appeal, Justice Prasenjit Biswas overturned the 1988 decision of a Midnapore sessions court that had convicted the appellants under Sections 147 and 304 Part I read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, Madhusudan Garai was summoned around midnight to a meeting at a “club ghar” in Sripur, where he was allegedly assaulted over accusations of an illicit relationship. He later succumbed to his injuries.

The High Court observed that the conviction rested primarily on the testimonies of the victim’s wife, brother, and sister-in-law, all of whom were related witnesses. While reiterating that evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely due to relationship, the court stressed that such testimony must be carefully scrutinised and must inspire confidence.

The bench found that although the witnesses claimed the victim was bleeding profusely at midnight, they left him at the spot and arranged medical assistance only the next morning. Such conduct, the court held, was inconsistent with normal human behaviour and cast doubt on their claimed presence during the assault.

The court also highlighted material contradictions regarding the lodging of the First Information Report, noting shifting versions about who drafted it and how it was recorded. It further pointed to inconsistencies over who arranged medical treatment — villagers or the police — with the attending medical officer not clarifying the sequence.

Among the investigative lapses noted were the failure to seize blood-stained earth from the alleged place of occurrence despite claims of heavy bleeding, and the investigating officer’s admission that he had not examined a key witness during the investigation. The court also held that the trial court improperly relied on prior police statements that were not proved in accordance with the law.

Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction, discharged the appellants from their bail bonds, and directed compliance with statutory requirements for their appearance before higher courts, if required.