Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Haran Ali Molla vs The State Of West Bengal on 24 March, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
C.R.A. 208 of 2001
Haran Ali Molla
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty
(Amicus curiae)
For the State : Ms. Faria Hossain
Ms. Kanchan Roy
Heard on : 03.12.2025
Judgment on : 24.03.2026
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
1.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated
27.04.2001 and 30.04.2001 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No.3(I) of
2001 arising out of Bhangore Police Station Case No.128 dated 22.08.2000.
2. The prosecution case precisely stated on August 21, 2000 at about 03:00
p.m., the deceased, Jamshed Ali Molla was grazing his goats in the adjacent
field of the appellant, when certain goats entered into the field of the
appellant and destroyed few brinjal plants. The appellant along with other
persons assaulted the victim resulting in his death. Thereafter, the dead
body of the deceased was hung on a mango tree situated on the field of
2
Chemai Molla. The victim was searched throughout the night. In the
morning, the victim’s mother found his dead body on the tree. Such an
incident initiated the complaint which was registered by the concerned police
station.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the
investigating officer against the appellant and charges were framed under
Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11
witnesses and exhibited certain documents.
5. The appellant faced the trial under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the trial,
the Learned Trial Judge had convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part
II of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows: –
i. The mother of deceased had found the dead body of the victim for the
first time, but the prosecution inspite of having ample opportunities
did not feel it necessary to examine her. Such grave omission creates
a shadow of doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story.
ii. Chemai Molla on whose mango tree the dead body was found was
never examined.
iii. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was based on hearsay.
iv. Conviction was solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence and last
seen together theory, which in no way supported by the depositions
of the witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
3
v. The alleged incident had taken place at 03:30 p.m., in the broad
daylight in an open field not witnessed by anyone.
vi. Exclusively one Adbar Gazi had seen the deceased, Jamshed to be
sitting on the mango tree of Chemai Molla, but he was never
examined.
vii. The seized Alamats were never produced before the Learned Trial
Court.
viii. The appellant submitted the prosecution failed to establish the
connectivity between the appellant and the crime. There must have
been certain connectivity between the appellant and the crime. Mere
non-explanation on the part of the appellant by itself could not lead
to proof of guilt against the appellant.
ix. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kanhaiya Lal V. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715 :: (2014) 2 SCC(Cri) 413 in Paragraph
12 observed –
“The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and
necessarily lead to the Inference that it was the accused who
committed the crime. There must be something more establishing
connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-
explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered
opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the
appellant.”
x. This Hon’ble Court in Jharu Mondal & Anr. V. State of West Bengal,
reported in 2005 SCC OnLine Cal 226 :: (2005) 4 CHN 568 in
Paragraph 32 held that the test of circumstances from which the
4
inference or guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established.
In Paragraph-39, This Hon’ble Court observed –
“The missing link in the set of circumstances snaps the chain.
Even if there was strong suspicion in order to find the accused
guilty there has to be some legal proof. Suspicion though a
ground for scrutiny of evidence at first before the Court it cannot
be the basis of a judicial decision.”
In Paragraph – 52, This Hon’ble Court opined –
“Suspicion, however, strong it may be it cannot take the place of
legal proof. There is a lot of difference between legal proof and
moral conviction and order of conviction.”
In Paragraph – 54, This Hon’ble Court observed –
“As we have found there are several grey areas in the
prosecution case. Unless there is full proof it would be unsafe to
form such a conviction. The Supreme Court in Sudama Pandey v.
State of Bihar, 2002 (1) SCC 679: 2002 C Cr LR (SC) 231, held
that:-
“……the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of
allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for
sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be short step
between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by
this Court that there is a long mental distance between ‘may be
true’ and ‘must be true’ and the same divides conjectures from
sure conclusions.””
5
7. The Learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted:-
i. PW-1 was the complainant as well as the maternal uncle of the
deceased. He stated in the F.I.R. that “Yesterday dated 21.08.2000 at
about 03:00 p.m. my nephew, Jamshed Molla, of Estan Molla, village,
Dalapukur, P.O., P.S. Bhangore, South 24 Parganas had gone to graze
some goats on the field. The brinjal field of 1) Haran Ali Molla and 2)
Babu Ali Molla, of the same village, both sons of Mobarak Molla is
located beside the place where the goats were grazing and they were
working on their field. Some goats had entered into their field and ate
up some brinjal plants. The abovementioned. two brothers, Haran Ali
Molla and Babu Ali Molla, had caught Jamshed Molla, son of Betan
Molla and had assaulted him and it is my firm belief that, owing to
inadvertence during the assault, that & 12 years old boy, Jamshed
Molla, son of Betan All Molla, of village Dalapukur had expired. In order
to hide their guilt, Haran Ali Molla and Baba Ali Molla, both sons of
Mobarak Molla, had hụng up the deceased, Jamshed Molla, son of
Estan Molla, aged 12 years on a mango tree situated on the adjoining
plot of land owned by Chimi Molla.”
Whereas in his deposition, he had developed his version by stating
“on 21.08.2000 at about 3.30 afternoon Jamshed Ali was grazing his
goats. He was 10 years old at that time. The goat entered into the
brinjal field of Haran Ali Molla and Babar Ali Molla. Goat eaten away
some brinjal trees. Jamshed Ali came to his mother and told that accd.
persons have caught and field the goat. His mother told him to go to the
aced, persons as because they will retum back the goat. At that time
6Jamshed Ali was chewing muri. The goat returned to the house but
Jamshed did not return home.”
He further stated that “Abdul Sattar Molla is the Morol of our village.
Sattar Molla (PW-9) intimated Bhangore P.S. over telephone about the
incident.”
PW-1 in his cross-examination on suggest regarding the cause of
death of the deceased stated “it is a fact that his mother rebuked due to
entering in the brinjal garden of the accd. Not a fact that his mother and
family members rebuked him for the lost of the goats from his custody.”
Such suggestion was supported by the version of the PW-2 in his
cross-examination “sometimes he used to loss the goats. Due to loss of
such goats mother of Jamshed rebuked him on that day.”
The above discussed discrepancies in the version of the
complainant clearly go to show the after-thought in the version of the
prosecution for the purpose of implicating the appellant in the
commission of the alleged crime.
ii. PW-2 was a resident of the same village and a hearsay witness, as he
had stated in his deposition that “I came to know that Jamshed i.e. the
victim was hanging in the mango tree by the bark of the jute wrapping
in his neck in the garden of the Chemai Molla. I do not know anything
which happened before.”
iii. PW-3 was a neighbour and also a hearsay witness as she had stated
in his cross-examination that “I have not seen any incident. I have not
seen Jamshed to graze goat. I have not seen the goat ate brinjal from
the field of Haran Molla.”
7
iv. PW-4 was an another maternal uncle of the deceased. He was also a
hearsay witness. He had heard about the incident from the mother of
the deceased. He had deposed for the first time before the Court.
v. PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 were declared hostile by the prosecution.
vi. PW-7 was the elder sister of the deceased. She stated in her
deposition that “the distance between brinjal garden and my paternal,
house is 400 to 500 cubits. I made statement to police that I have seen
all the incident. Not a fact I did not state to police that I have seen
Haran to give slaps to Jamshed. I did not state to police that when
Baran was slapping Jamshed my mother told him not to assault him
and to release the goats. Not a fact I did not state to police that
Jamshed returned to home and stated to my mother that accd. persons
were not releasing the goats to him. I did not state to police that my
mother gave muri to Jamshed and Jamshed while chewing muri went
to bring the goats from the custody of the accd. persons. Not a fact I did
not state to police that I lifted the dead body of Janshed and my uncle
tomed the bark of the jute plant from the neck of Jamshed and removed
the body from the mango tree. Not a fact it is false that the goats of
Jamshed entered into the brinajal garden of the accd. persons and ate
some of the brinjals. Not a fact I did not state to the police that Haran
and Babar caught the goats in their custody. Not a fact that I falsely
stated that Haran and Babar daught the goats and did not release the
same, Not a fact I falsely stated that Jamshed after returning home told
my mother that accd. persons were not releasing the goats and my
mother then gave him muri and while chewing muri he went for
8searching of the goats. Not a fact it is false that Haran and Babar did
not give slap to Jamshed. Not a fact I falsely stated that I personally
saw that, Haran to give to slap to Jamshed. Not a fact I did not state to
police that goats returned at 6.30 p.m. evening but Jamshed did not
returned. Not a fact I falsely stated that goats returned at 6.30 p.m. but
Jamshed did not return. Not a fact Jamshed lost the goats and due to
that I and my mother rebuked him and ousted him from the house. Not
a fact we stated to him that don’t return without the goats”. Not a fact I
deposed falsely.”
vii. PW-8 deposed that on August 23, 2000 he held post-mortem
examination over the dead body of Jamshed Ali Molla in connection
with Bhangore Police Station Case No.128 dated August 22, 2000
under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Condition of the dead body:-
a) All body swollen.
b) Blister formed at places all over the body.
c) Epidermis pilled of at places all over the body.
d) Tongue protruded and in between two rows of the teeth.
Injuries found on the dead body:
a) One well defined ligature mark 8″ X ½” around the neck
without any gap.
b) Ligature mark was more or less circular, continuous,
abraded, contused and parchmentized at places.
9
In his opinion, the death was due to the effects of strangulation by
ligature as mentioned above which were ante-mortem and homicidal
in nature.
In cross-examination, he admits that he did not find scratches,
abrasion, bruises, finger nail marks of the face, neck and other parts
of the body as are usually present in the body of Jamshed.
viii. PW-10 deposed on 22.8.2000 he was posted at Bhangore P.S. as an
A.S.I. On 22.08.2000, he got a telephonic message at 10:15 a.m., from
one Abdus Sattar Molla that an agitation was going on in connection
death of the deceased in Dalapukur village under Bhangore P.S. He
brought to the notice of aforesaid message to O.C. Bhangore P.S. As
per O.C.’s instruction, he sent the police personnels to the place of
occurrence. He lodged a formal F.I.R., which was marked as Exbt.-
1/2. He had lodged G.D. regarding telephonic message, which was
marked as Exbt.-5.
ix. PW-10 in his cross-examination stated that there was no note of
murder in the formal F.I.R. Subsequently, he did not obtain signature
of the person on the G.D. who gave the telephonic message.
x. PW-11 deposed on 22.08.2000 he was posted in Bhangore P.S. as S.I.
He stated “on 22.08.2000 I was on duty in the P.O. At 10.15 a.m.
morning. U.D. officer, Nani Gopal Saha got a telephonic message from
Abdus Sattar Molla at 10.15 a.m. morning regarding the death of
Jamshed Ali Molla at Dalapukur under P.S. Bhangore. S.I. informed
O.C. The case was allotted to me by the O.C., for investigation. Under
the instruction of O.C., I went to the place of occurrence with force. The
10
C.C. no. 1511 dated 22.08.2000 was issued to the force. Constable no.
C/237, Prabir Chakraborty, constable no.47, Arun Kr. Naskar,
H.G.2105 Haran Das accompained me. The dead body of Jamshed
was lying in the house of his father, Istan Ali. I made an inquest over
the dead body of Jamshed Ali. It is the said inquest report prepared in
carbon in same mechanical process. It bears my signature (marked ext.
2/4). I took signature of family members of Jamshed Ali on the inquest
resort. The inquest report was prepared in my hand writing. The body
was lying in straight condition. There was a ligature mark on the neck
and a rope like substance entered into the neck by cutting the place.
There was discharge of soil from the body. He was wearing a green
colour elastic pan. I made a primary investigation and I have given my
report of primary investigation in inquest report. After inquest is over I
sent the body for post mortem examination to Alipore morgue. I took the
statement of witnesses U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. I seized alamats. Witnesses
told me that the victim was hanging by a bark of the jute plant. I seized
part of the bark of jute plant. I prepared alamat and took signature of
the witnesses. These seizure lists bears my signature and hand writing
(marked ext. 3/2). During investigation I prepared the sketch map of the
locale. This is the said sketch map with index bearing my signature
(marked ext.-6). I collected the post mortem report. After collecting the
evidence and after proper investigation I have submitted the charge
sheet U/S. 302/201 I.P.C. in connection with case no. 128 dated
22.08.2000 against Haran Ali Molla and Babar Ali Molla. I arrested the
accd. persons and forwarded them to Ld. S.D.J.M. I heard from
11
Malkhana Officer that a message addressing to the officer-in-charge
directing to produce alamat has been received.”
xi. PW-11 in his cross-examination stated that “I came out from P.S. for
going to Dalapukur at 10:15 a.m. I lodged G.D. before coming out from
the P.S. I did not lodged G.D. personally but duty officer lodged the G.D.
First I went to the house of Intan Ali after going to Dalapukur at 11.20
a.m. I examined the dead body and prepared inquest report in
connection with Bhangore P.B. Casе No.120 dated 22.08.2000. It took
15 minutes to prepare the inquest report. I did not mention the names of
the person in my inquest report from than I made my primary
investigation. There is no mention in my C.D. about the mouza dag no.,
and khatian no., extend of land of brinjal garden. There is no mention
in the index of my sketch map about the dag no., khatian no., and
extent of land in the brinajal garden. From the sketch mas it will not
transpire which mouza involved this sketch map. I cannot say under
which dag and khatian no., Chemai Molla’s mango tree situated. The
distance of Chemai Molla’s mango trees and brinajal garden is not
mentioned in my index. There is no mention the tine of preparing this
index neither in the index nor in the C.D. In my C.D. “over the murder of
deceased is not mentioned”. I met Sattar Holla afterwards. I did not
obtain his signature on the telephonic massage. I visited the bringal
garden. There is no mention in my C.D. that I have seen the eaten
brinjal I did not seize the eaten bringal. The area of brinjal garden is not
mentioned in my C.D.
12
PW-7 Rashida Bibi did not make any statement before me that she
has seen Haran to give a slap to Jamshed. She did not make any
statement before me that Jamshed told his mother that accd. persons
are not releasing the goats. She did not state before me that Rashida
lifted the dead body of Jamshed and her uncle removed the body from
the trees by cutting the bark of jute plant. She did not state before me
that accd., persons kept the goats in their custody. Rashida did not
make statement before me that goat returned at 6 p.m. but Jamshed
did not return. I cannot give the time when O.C. endorsed me this case
for investigation. As per inquest report there is no mark of injury on the
body of Jamshed. I have not seen any marc of assault on the dead
body of Jamshed except the ligature mark on the neck. The seizure list
was prepared at 11.25 a.m. I do not find the alamat in the court today.
I do not know whether Ali Hossen Holla gave information in the
morning to the P.S. Not a fact this F.I.R., was prepared after
suppressing the said information. Not a fact for suppressing the said
information a story of telephonic message has been fabricated. Not a
fact as there was no telephonic message from Abdus Sattar hence I did
not obtain his signature on the telephonic message. Not a fact I did not
vinit the place of occurrence. Not a fact I did not do anything except
some paper works. Not a fact if I would investigate the cane properly
then seed. Haran and Babar Ali Molla would not face the trial.
It is a fact that Abdar Gazi stated before me that he has seen
Jamshed sitting in Chemai Molla’s mango tree.”
13
8. The Learned Advocate representing the State submitted that the prosecution
was able to prove its case based on corroborative evidence of the prosecution
witnesses supported by the medical evidence and the appeal should be
dismissed.
9. At the outset, the testimony of PW-1, the de facto complainant and maternal
uncle of the deceased, assumes centrality. His version in the complaint
portray a direct accusation against the appellant alleging assault leading to
the death of the minor and subsequent attempt to camouflage the
occurrence as a case of hanging. The complaint unfolds a direct and
unequivocal accusation that the accused persons upon finding their brinjal
field trespass by goats assaulted, the minor boy which led to his death and
thereafter suspended the body from a mango tree in an attempt to obliterate
the trace of their culpability. Yet, when he entered the witness box, the
narrative assumed an altogether altered contour. He introduces an
intervening episode where the deceased is stated to have returned home,
interacted with his mother and then proceeded again towards the accused
persons. This interpolation is not a mere embellishment born out of lapse of
memory. It constitutes a substantive deviation with strikes at the base of the
prosecution story; such an evolution of the narrative and unexplained and
uncorroborated facts attack the intrinsic credibility of the witness and cast a
shadow upon the spontaneity and veracity of the accusation. This material
departure from the complaint is not trivial or irrational, rather, it constitutes
a substantive embellishment which erodes the evidentiary worth of his
testimony. The attempt to attribute homicidal culpability appears therefore
to be an afterthought rather than a spontaneous disclosure of truth.
14
10. More significantly, the defence suggestion, which finds partial resonance in
the evidence of PW-2 introduces a competing hypothesis that the deceased
has been subjected to assault on account of negligence in managing the
goats. The presence of such a plausible alternative emanating from the
prosecution’s own evidentiary framework renders the singularity of the
prosecution version doubtful. In criminal jurisprudence where the liberty of
the individual is at such doubt, the same cannot be brushed aside leniently.
11. The cross examination of PW-1 fortified the defence suggestion, that the
deceased had been reprimanded by his mother for losing or mishandling the
goats. This introduces an alternative hypothesis inconsistent with the
prosecution case, thereby diluting, the certainty required for sustaining a
conviction in a criminal trial.
12. PW-2, by his own admission, is a hearsay witness. His knowledge is
derivative and not founded upon direct perception. His statement that he
came to know about the victim being found hanging does not advance the
prosecution case in any substantive manner. The law is well settled that
hearsay evidence, unless falling within recognised exceptions carries
negligible probative value. Hearsay unless fortified by legally admissible
exceptions remains an inherently fragile form of evidence and cannot be
elevated to the status of substantive proof.
13. PW-3 and PW-4 add no greater strength to the prosecution case. Both are
admittedly hearsay witnesses and PW-3 candidly conceded she had not
witnessed any incident, not even seen the deceased grazing goats in the
relevant field. PW-4 nearly echoed what he had heard from the mother of the
15
deceased. Such testimonies devoid of direct knowledge cannot from the
bedrock of finding guilt.
14. The position is further attenuated by the hostility of PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9
Their departure from the prosecution version, resile the case of potential
corroborative support and underscores the fragility of the evidentiary
structure upon which the prosecution raised it’s claim.
15. The evidence on record further that PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9, were declared
hostile. The prosecution, therefore, lacks the support of material witnesses
who might have lent co-operation, thereby rendering its case, fragmented
and unsubstantiated..
16. PW-7, the sister of the deceased is projected as a witness of significance. Yet
her deposition has resulted in reflecting omissions and contradictions, vis-a-
vis her previous statements. Her peculiar assertions during investigation
such as weakness in the assault, the role of the appellant and the
surrounding circumstances of the incident; such omissions are not minor
discrepancies but go to the core of the prosecution case, render her
testimony unhestitatingly unsafe for reliance without independent
corroboration, which is conspicuously absent.
17. The medical evidence also failed to fortify the prosecution case. While the
post mortem doctor opined the death was due to ligature strangulation and
homicidal in nature, the cross-examination revealed a striking absence of
concomitant injuries i.e. no scratches, aberrations, bruises, or nail marks,
which were expected to be present in a case of forceful strangulation,
particularly involving a conscious victim. This incongruity between medical
expectation and actual findings create a reasonable doubt as to the precise
16
manner of death. The possibility of suicidal hanging in the absence of
definitive imposition could not be discarded. The medical opinion, though
entitled to due weight cannot be viewed in isolation. It must harmonise with
the overall evidentiary mosaic which in the present case remains discordant.
18. The evidence of PW 10 and PW 11 bore serious procedural lapse in the
investigation. The complaint did not initially disclose a case of murder, the
telephonic information remains unsubstantiated by signature and crucial
details such as the exact place of occurrence particulars and
contemporaneous documents were absent from the case diary and sketch
map. The Investigating Officer irresponsibly admitted failing to seize relevant
evidence, including the allegedly consumed brinjal plants and exposed
omissions in documenting essential facts. The failure to establish the precise
sites assumed significance in a case resting of circumstantial evidence.
19. Equally disconcerting is the absence of any direct evidence linking the
appellant to the act of assault or the alleged hanging. The prosecution has
not succeeded in establishing a complete chain of circumstances, pointing
exactitude of the guilt of the accused. Each link in the chain appears either
to be broken or tenuous and the cumulative effect is one of uncertainty
rather than assurance.
20. The law does not countenance conviction on the basis of suspicion, however,
grave or compelling it may appear. The burden lies upon the prosecution to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that burden never shifts.
Where the evidence is susceptible of two views, the one favourable to the
accused is to be accepted; this solitary principle is not a technicality, but a
fundamental safeguard of personal liberty.
17
21. In the present case, the inconsistencies in the testimony of the principal
witness the nature of supporting evidence, the hostility of material
witnesses, the inconclusive, medical findings and the manifest deficiencies in
investigation, generated a reasonable doubt which cannot be dispelled by
conjuncture or surmise.
22. Fundamentally suspicion, however, grave cannot substitute proof. The
burden was upon the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. In the present case, the inconsistencies in the testimony of the
principal witness, the inconsistent nature of evidence of supporting
witnesses, the hostility of witnesses, the indecisive medical evidence and the
negligent investigation collectively grave, rise to a reasonable doubt, which
must necessarily be enured to the benefit of the appellant.
23. In such a situation, judicial conscience does not permit the imposition of
guilt. The appellants are entitled as a matter of right to the benefit of doubt.
24. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant
cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside.
25. In view of the above, the instant criminal appeal being CRA 208 of 2001 is
allowed.
26. There is no order as to costs.
27. I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the Learned
Advocat Mr. Rajeshwar Chakraborty as Amicus Curiae in disposing of this
appeal.
28. Case Diary, if any, to be returned forthwith.
29. Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once
to the Learned Trial Court for necessary action.
18
30. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on
priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link
