Calcutta HC Upholds BSF Constable’s Life Term For Killing Colleague, Relying On Sole Eyewitness Who Had Relationships With Both Men

The appellant and the deceased, Arbind Kumar, were BSF constables.

The prosecution alleged that on 24 January 2018 the appellant shot Arbind with Arbind’s service rifle while Dasami Modak was with him, and later concealed the body.

Dasami identified the appellant as the assailant; the prosecution also relied on forensic evidence, the inquest and call-detail records.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, sentencing him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for murder and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence; it acquitted him of the Arms Act charges.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the criminal court’s jurisdiction under Section 475(1) CrPC and the reliability of the prosecution evidence, particularly Dasami’s testimony and its delayed recording.

Section 475(1) CrPC provides for rules governing whether a person subject to military law is to be tried by a criminal court or court-martial, and requires a Magistrate to have regard to those rules and, in proper cases, deliver the accused to the commanding officer.

The Court held that the provision did not oust the jurisdiction of an otherwise competent criminal court and treated any relevant rule as directory in the circumstances.

Under the principles applied by the Court, a conviction may rest on the evidence of a single eyewitness if that evidence is reliable and trustworthy; minor discrepancies do not necessarily undermine otherwise credible testimony.

Sections 302 and 201 IPC respectively concern murder and causing disappearance of evidence of an offence.

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge because no relevant Central Government rules were identified and, in any event, Section 475(1) did not displace the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

On the merits, it found Dasami’s trial testimony consistent with her Section 164 CrPC statement and considered her account of the shooting credible, noting that she implicated herself and that no reason for falsely accusing the appellant had been shown.

The Court considered her evidence supported by the inquest, ballistic and forensic evidence, and call-detail records.

It also accepted the prosecution’s motive theory and upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of the alibi, finding the defence witnesses’ evidence insufficiently reliable and unsupported by records.

It concluded that the eyewitness evidence alone was sufficient to sustain the convictions, with further corroborative support from the other evidence.

It found no basis to interfere with the convictions or sentences and dismissed the appeal; the Arms Act acquittal remained undisturbed.