Credible eyewitness testimony sustains conviction despite non-recovery of the weapon and inconsistent medical evidence.

On 18 March 2011, Dwijen Chakraborty was allegedly assaulted while returning from a local market. He sustained multiple injuries, including a fatal stab wound to the chest, and later reached his house, where he named the appellants before his mother, PW-4.

PW-1, the deceased’s wife, claimed to have witnessed appellant no. 1, Birendra Chakraborty, stabbing the deceased; PWs 2–4 corroborated the deceased’s statements identifying the assailants.

The deceased was declared “brought dead” at Amta Hospital, and the post-mortem examination attributed his death to a stab injury piercing the heart.

An FIR was registered under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and other family members.

The Trial Court acquitted Biswajit Chakraborty and Sulekha Chakraborty but convicted Birendra Chakraborty and Madhabi Chakraborty under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant no. 1, Birendra Chakraborty, caused the fatal injuries to the deceased, notwithstanding the non-recovery of the alleged knife and the discrepancies in the medical evidence.

2. Whether the testimony of the deceased’s wife, mother, son, and brother could be relied upon despite their relationship with the deceased and the absence of independent eyewitnesses.

3. Whether the deceased’s statements identifying the assailants were admissible and reliable under the principle of res gestae embodied in Section 6 of the Evidence Act.

4. Whether the evidence established the participation of appellant no. 2, Madhabi Chakraborty, in the assault or the criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.

The Court applied Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code concerning murder and criminal conspiracy, and Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning statements forming part of the same transaction, or res gestae.

It held, relying on Dhal Singh Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh, that a spontaneous and contemporaneous statement made immediately after the occurrence may be admitted as res gestae where it is sufficiently connected with the transaction.

Relying on Ghanshyam Mandal v. State of Bihar, the Court held that recovery of the weapon of assault is not a sine qua non for conviction where reliable eyewitness evidence otherwise establishes the assault.

It further relied on Pramode Dey v. State of West Bengal for the principle that the absence of an FSL report is not necessarily fatal where the direct evidence is credible.

The Court also applied the distinction between a related witness and an interested witness, relying on Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra and the principle that relationship alone does not make testimony unreliable.

The Court found the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 substantially consistent and considered the deceased’s immediate identification of the assailants before his mother to be spontaneous and reliable under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.

PW-1’s account that Birendra stabbed the deceased was corroborated by the injury evidence and the post-mortem finding of a stab wound penetrating the heart.

Although the knife was not recovered and the initial medical report differed from the post-mortem report regarding the number of injuries, the Court held that these omissions and discrepancies did not displace the credible ocular evidence; the medical evidence at least established a fatal stabbing consistent with the prosecution case.

The familial relationship of the witnesses was not treated as a disqualification, particularly because the witnesses were naturally present and the offence occurred at night behind the deceased’s house, making the absence of outsiders unsurprising.

However, the Court found the evidence against Madhabi insufficient: apart from an uncorroborated assertion by PW-1 that she used a bamboo stick, there was no clear evidence proving her participation in the assault or the alleged conspiracy, and the other witnesses did not consistently attribute such a role to her.

The conviction and life sentence of appellant no. 1, Birendra Chakraborty, under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC were upheld, subject to any benefit available under law.

The conviction of appellant no. 2, Madhabi Chakraborty, was set aside for want of sufficient evidence, and she was acquitted and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

I.A. No. CRAN 3 of 2022 was disposed of, and the trial court records were directed to be transmitted to the Trial Court.