Calcutta High Court upholds life terms for surviving accused in 1985 political ambush that killed two bus passengers

On 7 August 1985, a group of Congress supporters travelling in a minibus to a meeting was stopped by an armed group amid political rivalry. The prosecution alleged that the attackers blocked the road, confined the targeted passengers and assaulted them; Mahesh Basunia and Gorachand died, and several passengers were injured.

Seven injured eyewitnesses testified about the attack, while medical evidence established the deaths and injuries.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing each to life imprisonment and two years’ imprisonment respectively, with fines; the appeals challenged those convictions and sentences.

Several appellants died during the appeals, which abated as to them; the High Court considered the appeals of the surviving appellants.

1. Whether the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the surviving appellants were members of an unlawful assembly whose common object included the murders and assaults, including those who remained outside the bus

2. Whether omissions, inconsistencies, the hostile evidence of PW-9, the timing of the FIR and inquest, and alleged investigative deficiencies undermined the prosecution case

3. Whether the evidence established the offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons under Sections 324/149 IPC

Sections 302 and 324 IPC punish murder and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons; Section 149 IPC makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for an offence committed in prosecution of its common object, or one known to be likely, and does not require proof that each member personally committed an overt act (Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Yunis alias Kariya v. State of M.P.; Lalji v. State of U.P.)

Whether a person shared the assembly’s common object must be assessed from the evidence and surrounding circumstances; armed obstruction, coordinated conduct, guarding the victims and collective departure may support that inference.

Injured eyewitness testimony deserves substantial weight but must be assessed for material contradictions or inherent improbability.

An inquest under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) concerns the apparent cause of death and is not intended to identify the offender; an inquest preceding formal FIR registration does not, by itself, invalidate the prosecution case.

A hostile witness’s evidence is not wholly discredited and may be accepted to the extent it is reliable.

The Court found that seven injured eyewitnesses gave mutually corroborative accounts of the armed interception and assault, supported by medical evidence and by the bus driver and helper on the obstruction and attack.

It treated variations in timing, sequence and detail as non-fatal, and found that the hostile witness’s account did not displace the consistent identification evidence.

The Court held that the delay in formal FIR registration and the prior inquest did not establish fabrication or prejudice, and that the investigative deficiencies identified by the defence did not overcome the prosecution evidence.

It found that both the assailants inside the bus and the armed group outside acted together: the outside group helped block the bus, prevent escape and support the attack. Their location outside the bus did not exempt them from Section 149 liability.

The medical evidence of injuries caused by sharp and blunt weapons, together with the eyewitness accounts, also supported the convictions under Sections 324/149 IPC.

The substantive sentences were to run concurrently; the period of detention was to be set off under Section 428 CrPC, and the pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.