The Calcutta High Court has held that non-recovery of a weapon used in a murder cannot render a prosecution case unreliable since the killing was established from evidence at the trial. The court made the observation while affirming the conviction and life sentence of three persons in a murder case of 1999. It also observed that the prosecution was sufficiently able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants with the help of convincing evidence. "As such, we find no justification in interfering with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. We affirm the same," a division bench presided by Justice Debangsu Ghosh ruled in a judgment on Friday. The court said that since it is established from the evidence at the trial that the victim was murdered, "non-recovery of the offending weapon and absence of charge under the relevant sections of the Arms Act cannot render the case of the prosecution unreliable or false".
Observing that it is a trite law that the motive for committing a crime becomes redundant in the presence of eyewitnesses, the division bench, also comprising Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi, said, "In the case at hand, there are at least three eyewitnesses to the incident." On June 19, 1999, one Sridam Ghosh was travelling in a mechanised boat on the Ganges river with his two brothers and appellants Dhanu Ghosh and his two accomplices also boarded the boat at Ketugram in Purba Bardhaman district. According to a complaint lodged with the Ketugram Police Station, Dhanu Ghosh went near Sridam, took out a pipe gun and fired at his throat from close range. It was claimed by Gopinath Ghosh, the complainant and elder brother of the victim, that the other miscreants remained standing beside Dhanu and gave out a call to kill Sridam and that then only revenge would be taken. The victim, being shot, fell on the floor of the boat and instantly died, the complaint stated. The three accused - Dhanu Ghosh and his two aides - were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment by the additional sessions judge, Katwa, in February 2022. The lawyer for the appellants submitted before the division bench that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges levelled against them and that the trial court convicted them on mere conjecture.
He contended that the trial court failed to appreciate that the alleged crime was committed by a pipe gun, but no such offending weapon was ever recovered. The appellants' lawyer sought that the trial court conviction be overturned, claiming that there was no endeavour on the part of the investigating officer to recover the offending weapon, and at the same time, the fired bullet was also not recovered. Opposing the prayer, the counsel for the state submitted that there is overwhelming evidence on record against the guilt of the appellants. He said eyewitnesses have established that the appellants were indeed the persons who perpetrated the crime, and the defence counsels have not been able to imprint any dent on the trustworthiness of the prosecution witnesses. The counsel for the state submitted before the division bench that the prosecution has convincingly proved the charge beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are justified and liable to be affirmed. The court noted that the defence counsel sought to put up a plea that since several criminal cases were pending between the two sides, the appellants had been falsely implicated in this incident out of previous enmity. "We are afraid, such a case made out on the part of the appellants may act like a two-edged sword," the court said, maintaining that this may also result in providing a motive behind the murder of the victim. Holding that the victim might have been murdered for the previous enmity between the two sides to settle scores, the bench said, "We are not at all convinced with such a defence put up by the appellants."