Kolkata: Observing that police need not apply before the Magistrate to carry out further investigation after the filing and acceptance of the closure report, Calcutta High Court acquitted
seven persons in a 2011 alleged murder, broadly based on procedural lapses, inconsistent medical evidence and doubts regarding the identification of body.
The bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta was moved by the accused challenging the judgement and conviction order for alleged murder and evidence tampering.
On November 2, 2011 an unidentified body was found in Raigachi, Chotpole, under Rajarhat Police Station (PS) area. It was photographed and sent for autopsy. Initially, identity remained unknown and an unnatural death case and FIR was registered on November 3. Police filed a closure report after failing to identify the body. In 2013, an anonymous caller identified the deceased, prompting further probe. Case was transferred to Baguiati PS which registered a second FIR.
Chargesheet was filed against 11 accused and nine were convicted. The court first observed that the second FIR registered by the Baguiati PS suffers from procedural impropriety. It gave rise to two FIRs in respect of the same incident. Upon filing of a closure report, the police do not lose their statutory right to carry out further investigation. Further investigation is continuation of the original investigation.
The Magistrate accepting the closure report need not recall its order for enabling the police to do further investigation. The police need not apply before the Magistrate to carry out further investigation even after the filing and acceptance of the closure report. Further, the court found the identification of the body questionable. The victim’s mother identified a photograph which was never exhibited in court. The victim’s brother denied recognising the photograph and claimed coercion by police to sign documents.
The victim’s wife was neither examined nor cited. Discrepancies existed between the inquest report (no tattoo noted) and the autopsy report (tattoo found), raising doubts whether the same body
was examined.
The autopsy report indicated death by asphyxia due to strangulation but also noted severe injuries (e.g., broken ribs, chest trauma) inconsistent with the eyewitness accounts, which described only strangulation with a nylon rope. Precise cause of death and how additional injuries were sustained remained unascertained. Other reasons for quashing conviction were untrustworthy eyewitnesses and evidential gaps.