KOLKATA: A murder convict who spent seven years in jail was acquitted last month by Calcutta High Courtwhich after passing through EVIDENCEfound serious gaps in establishing beyond doubt that he committed the crime.
The incident dates back to April 23, 2015, when the Kolkata resident Ranadeep Banerjeealias Rinku, was accused of killing his older brother, who suffered from a neurological disorder. A cousin of the two brothers, Joydeep Banerjee, had registered a case at the Gariahat police station. In 2017, Ranadip was convicted of murder by a trial court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
Ranadip challenged his conviction before a division bench Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Uday Kumar citing discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence. “The chain of circumstances was fabricated by the police according to their whims and fancies, in the absence of any direct evidence for the commission of the crime,” his lawyer argued.
The state counsel argued that it was established that the relationship between the brothers was bitter and the accused used to assault the victim. On the fateful day, he caused the victim and prevented him from receiving proper treatment, resulting in his death.
However, after going through the details of the case, the HC bench observed that while courts can ignore trivial inconsistencies, material contradictions are fatal and demolish a case based on circumstantial evidence due to non-establishment of links. The bench expressed its surprise that the investigating officer did not record statements of the immediate neighbors and tenants in the premises where the crime was committed.
The HC division bench pointed out that while the prosecution claimed that a blood-stained rod recovered from the room was the murder weapon, no forensic examination was conducted to ascertain whether the blood on it matched that of the victim or whether the fingerprints of the accused were present on her.
There was no evidence that the weapon was used to commit the crime, the judges said, adding that while samples of the accused’s blood and fingerprints had been taken, they had not been forensically examined or matched.
“The benefit of Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be given to the prosecution only in a case where it has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances to be established. This provision cannot come to the aid of the prosecution in the present case where it has failed to form and connect the chain of circumstances even to the slightest extent,” the court said.