In a case that dates back to a summer evening in 1982, the Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court’s order acquitting three men accused of dacoity and receiving stolen property.
Delivering judgment on February 24, 2026, Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay dismissed the State’s appeal, bringing an end to litigation that has stretched over nearly four decades.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The incident took place on July 31, 1982, at around 7:30 p.m. in Begunkodar, Purulia district. According to the complaint, Sukumar Sarkar, a junior accountant, was at his government quarter with his wife and two neighbours when four men allegedly entered the room armed with deadly weapons.
The attackers allegedly threatened the family and took away jewellery, Rs. 858 in cash, and a wristwatch belonging to one of the neighbours. The accused were later charged under Section 395 (dacoity) and Section 412 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code.
However, in March 1988, the Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia, acquitted all the accused. The State then moved the High Court challenging that acquittal.
Evidence Before the Trial Court
During trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. These included the complainant, his wife, neighbours, police officers, and a magistrate who conducted a test identification parade for the recovered wristwatch.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
The prosecution argued that the wristwatch was recovered from one of the accused persons based on a statement given to police. The watch was later identified by the alleged owner before a magistrate.
However, two independent seizure witnesses turned hostile during trial and did not support the prosecution’s version regarding the recovery of the watch.
State’s Argument in Appeal
Appearing for the State, counsel argued that the trial court had wrongly discarded reliable evidence. It was submitted that:
- Eye witnesses had clearly stated that four men entered the house with weapons.
- The wristwatch was recovered following the accused’s disclosure.
- The watch was identified during the test identification parade.
- Minor delays or procedural lapses should not have led to acquittal.
The State contended that the acquittal had resulted in a “grave failure of justice.”
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
Justice Bandyopadhyay closely examined the record and noted several serious gaps in the prosecution case.
One major issue was identification. The court observed that the witnesses admitted they could not properly identify the accused persons. The alleged identification took place in the light of a lamp, but that lamp was never produced in court.
The court also found inconsistencies regarding the seizure of the wristwatch. Two seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution during trial. Further, the ownership of the wristwatch was not conclusively proved.
The judgment noted that the alleged victim could not initially recall the watch number. His statement about it was recorded nearly three months after the incident, raising doubts about memory and reliability.
On the admissibility of statements made to police, the court found that the alleged disclosure statements did not carry legal credibility. The court observed that a confession leading to recovery must strictly comply with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and in this case, such compliance was doubtful.
“There had been substantial lacunae in the prosecution case as far as identification is concerned,” the court effectively held, emphasizing that the evidence was not strong enough to overturn an acquittal.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return
The High Court also took note of the passage of 38 years since the incident and the filing of the appeal. The judge observed that at such a belated stage, interference with a reasoned order of acquittal would not be justified unless the findings were clearly perverse or illegal.
After reviewing the material, the court concluded that the trial court’s decision did not suffer from such defects.
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia.
Accordingly, GA 19 of 1988 was dismissed. There was no order as to costs .
The court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the amicus curiae in the matter.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal vs Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami & Ors.
Case No.: GA 19 of 1988
Decision Date: 24 February 2026
