Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment of three individuals in a 1999 murder case, ruling that the non-recovery of the murder weapon does not render the prosecution’s case unreliable. The judgment underscores that the absence of the offending firearm cannot undermine the evidence presented at trial, particularly when the act of murder has been clearly established.

The case dates back to June 19, 1999, when Sridam Ghosh was traveling on a mechanized boat along the Ganges River in Ketugram, Purba Bardhaman district, accompanied by his two brothers. According to the complaint lodged at Ketugram Police Station, the accused—Dhanu Ghosh and his two accomplices—boarded the same boat and attacked the victim. Dhanu allegedly pulled out a pipe gun and fired at Sridam from close range, fatally injuring him. Gopinath Ghosh, the elder brother and complainant, claimed that the other two accused stood beside Dhanu, urging the killing to settle a prior enmity. Sridam succumbed instantly to his injuries.

The trial court, after examining the evidence, convicted Dhanu Ghosh and his aides and sentenced them to life imprisonment in February 2022. The defense had challenged the conviction before the High Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to recover the weapon or the fired bullet, contending that the case rested on mere conjecture. They further alleged that prior criminal disputes between the victim and the accused might have led to a false implication.

However, the Calcutta High Court, in a judgment delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Debangsu Ghosh and Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi, rejected these contentions. The court observed that eyewitness testimony was sufficient to establish the crime, stating: “It is established from the evidence at trial that the victim was murdered. Non-recovery of the offending weapon and absence of charge under the relevant sections of the Arms Act cannot render the prosecution’s case unreliable or false.”

The court also noted that motive becomes secondary in cases where eyewitnesses directly testify to the crime. In this instance, at least three eyewitnesses were present to testify about the attack and the identity of the assailants, making the defense’s claims about false implication unconvincing. The bench further remarked that prior enmity between the victim and the accused could, in fact, provide context and motive for the crime rather than weaken the prosecution’s case.

The state’s counsel had emphasized that the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence against the accused, including credible eyewitness accounts that left little room for doubt. “The prosecution has convincingly proven the charge beyond all reasonable doubts,” the counsel argued, reinforcing that the conviction and life sentences were fully justified.

In its verdict, the High Court affirmed the life sentences of all three accused, stating: “As such, we find no justification in interfering with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. We affirm the same.”

This judgment serves as a precedent in criminal jurisprudence, clarifying that the absence of a murder weapon does not automatically weaken a case when the guilt of the accused can be established through direct evidence. It also underscores the judiciary’s reliance on eyewitness testimony and the overall coherence of the prosecution’s case over technical gaps such as unrecovered weapons or ballistic evidence.

The ruling concludes a more than two-decade-long legal battle stemming from a brutal act on the banks of the Ganges and highlights the persistence of victims’ families and the criminal justice system in ensuring accountability, even years after the incident.