The case revolves around the alleged murder of the accused person’s elder brother. The deceased, who suffered from neurological issues, passed away in his hometown of Kolkata. Following his death, a cousin filed a complaint against the accused, his own blood brother, alleging foul play.
Based on circumstantial evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The conviction was primarily built on factors such as a strained relationship between the brothers, physical evidence—including a blood-stained iron rod, pillow, and bed cover recovered from the scene—and witness statements from neighbors claiming that the accused had assaulted the victim on the day of the incident. These combined elements led to a life sentence.
However, the verdict was later challenged before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. The defense highlighted critical flaws in the prosecution’s case, emphasizing the lack of forensic analysis on the seized items and the complete absence of eyewitnesses to the alleged assault. Additionally, the defense pointed out inconsistencies in witness testimonies, arguing that these contradictions undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s narrative. They asserted that the evidence presented failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Upon review, the Hon’ble High Court found that the prosecution had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear and logical connection between the accused and the crime. Concluding that the conviction was based on inadequate evidence, the court overturned the life sentence, leading to the accused’s release after more than nine years of wrongful imprisonment.
This case underscores the judiciary’s crucial role in upholding the fundamental right to a fair trial, ensuring that justice is not only about convicting the guilty but also about protecting the innocent from unjust punishment.
