By the Division Bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, Calcutta High Court, Judgment Dated July 17, 2025
In a landmark ruling, the Calcutta High Court, in State of West Bengal v. Surojit Deb and Others with connected appeals CRA 477 of 2019, CRA 482 of 2019, and CRA 587 of 2019 (Death Reference No. 04 of 2019), has acquitted Surojit Deb, Lipika Poddar, and Sanjoy Biswas, overturning their convictions and death sentences imposed by the trial court.
The division bench, comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, ruled on July 17, 2025, that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the heinous murder case involving the dismembered body of a lady, found at Sealdah Railway Station in 2014.
Facts of the Case
On May 20, 2014, a shocking discovery was made at the car parking area of Sealdah Railway Station, Kolkata. Sub-Inspector Abhijit Saha, while on duty, observed an unattended red trolley bag, a rolled bedding with a red quilt, and a school bag. Suspecting foul play, he informed the Government Railway Police Station (GRPS). Upon inspection, police uncovered a dismembered female body—headless and limbless—wrapped in the quilt, with the severed head, hands, and legs packed in polythene bags inside the trolley bag. A cash memo bearing the name and address of a lady, the wife of appellant Surojit Deb, facilitated her identification. The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, including bloodstained articles (lamp stand, bed sheet, quilt) and a dagger, allegedly linked to the appellants. The trial court convicted Surojit Deb, Lipika Poddar, and Sanjoy Biswas under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing them to death for the offences under Sections 302/120B and seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a ₹50,000 fine each for the offence under Section 201/120B.
Appellants’ Contentions
The appellants, through their counsel, argued that “there is nothing in the evidence to connect the appellants with the crime,” as the body was found in a public place with no witnesses placing them at Sealdah Railway Station or linking them to the seized articles.
Surojit Deb, the victim’s estranged husband, submitted that “he has been residing somewhere else with another lady accused for a considerable period” and “never visited the house of the victim during such time,” emphasizing the lack of evidence proving their presence at the victim’s flat at 827A, Lake Town.
The Appellants further contended that “there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution,” such as conflicting accounts about accessing the flat (breaking a padlock versus using a key). The defense asserted that the prosecution’s failure to examine key witnesses, like the victim’s parents-in-law and the taxi driver, raised “reasonable doubt with regard to the legitimacy of the prosecution case.”
The Appellants challenged the reliance on Sanjoy Biswas’s Section 164 CrPC statement, arguing that “such statement of Sanjoy Biswas cannot be relied upon to convict the other appellants” as it was exculpatory, not confessional, and was not confronted during their Section 313 CrPC examination. The appellants also submitted that “there is no proof of any conspiracy or prior meeting of mind towards the commission of offence” and that recoveries did not meet Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act standards. They argued that “imposing death penalty was not at all warranted” as the case did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category.
Respondent’s Contentions
The State, defending the trial court’s verdict, submitted that “the prosecution has been successfully able to bring home the charges levelled against the appellants with the help of convincing evidence.”
They relied on the testimony of 25 witnesses, including police officers and forensic experts, and material evidence like bloodstained articles and a dagger recovered based on the appellants’ statements.
The State emphasized that “the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs to be upheld,” citing the recovery of a cash memo in the victim’s name as establishing a nexus with Surojit Deb’s flat.
The respodents further contended that Sanjoy Biswas’s Section 164 CrPC statement, which implicated all appellants in the dismemberment and disposal of the body, supported the charge of criminal conspiracy.
Court’s Observations
The Calcutta High Court found the prosecution’s case lacking in evidential rigor, noting that “there is absolutely no evidence led at the trial that any of the appellant was seen in the vicinity within reasonable proximity of the date of incident to suspect that they might have committed the crime.”
The testimony of the victim’s daughter confirmed Surojit Deb’s long-term separation from the victim, further weakening the prosecution’s claims. The court highlighted material contradictions and the prosecution’s failure to examine crucial witnesses, which undermined the chain of circumstances.
The Court says that Sanjoy Biswas’s Section 164 statement was not admissible, stating, “we are afraid such a statement can hardly be classified as a confession,” as it was exculpatory and not confronted during the appellants’ Section 313 examination.
The court further held that “the prosecution had hopelessly failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellants at the trial, beyond all reasonable doubts sufficient enough to secure their conviction,” noting non-compliance with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the absence of evidence for a Section 120B conspiracy. On the death penalty, the court observed that “death sentence awarded to the appellants, cannot, therefore, be sustained even, less to talk of its confirmation,” as the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the trial court’s convictions and death sentences, acquitting Surojit Deb, Lipika Poddar, and Sanjoy Biswas of all charges, and ordered their immediate release, subject to a bond under Section 437A CrPC for six months. The court directed that the judgment be communicated to the trial court and correctional home, cancelling any warrants.
Read the full judgement 👉[Click Here]
Appearances:
- For the Appellants in Death Reference No. 04 of 2019 and CRA 477 of 2019 (Surojit Deb): Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Moumita Pandit, Advocate.
- For the Appellant in CRA 482 of 2019 (Lipika Poddar): Mr. Supreem Naskar, Advocate, Ms. Jayashree Patra, Advocate, and Ms. Pritha Sinha, Advocate.
- For the Appellant in CRA 587 of 2019 (Sanjoy Biswas): Mr. Malay Bhattacharya, Advocate, and Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh, Advocate.
- For the State in Death Reference No. 04 of 2019, CRA 477 of 2019, CRA 482 of 2019, and CRA 587 of 2019: Mr. Debasish Roy, Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Advocate, and Ms. Manasi Roy, Advocate.
- For the De Facto Complainant in CRA 587 of 2019: Mr. Kallol Mondal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Krishan Ray, Advocate, Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Akbar Laskar, Advocate, and Ms. Isita Kundu, Advocate.