Calcutta High Court Upholds BSF Constable C.T. Raghunandan’s Life Sentence for Jealousy-Fuelled Colleague Murder

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Border Security Force (BSF) constable C.T. Raghunandan for murdering fellow constable Arbind Kumar in Cooch Behar district in 2018. The Division Bench found that the killing was driven by jealousy over a triangular relationship involving the two men and a local woman.

Justices Arijit Banerjee and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), sitting at the High Court’s Circuit Bench in Jalpaiguri, dismissed Raghunandan’s appeal, CRA/22/2021. The Bench affirmed the trial court’s finding that he shot Arbind with Arbind’s service INSAS rifle near the Durga Nagar Border Outpost on the night of January 24, 2018, and subsequently concealed the body.

What happened near the outpost

Arbind was on duty at Point Alpha-9 under the Durga Nagar BOP. At around 10:00–10:30 pm, a BSF constable stationed nearby heard a noise resembling a bomb explosion. When attempts to contact Arbind by radio received no response, a search was organised. His body was found in a jungle in Noloni Barman’s plantation, with his hands and legs tied with blue nylon rope.

The investigation led to Dasami Modak, a local woman and mother of two, who was later examined as the prosecution’s sole eyewitness. In a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), she said she had been in a physical relationship with both constables.

Modak told the court that, on the night of the killing, she went to meet Arbind after receiving a pre-arranged torchlight signal. While they were engaged in a physical relationship, Raghunandan arrived and shot Arbind in the chest at point-blank range with Arbind’s own service rifle. She said Raghunandan then threatened to kill her and her children if she revealed what had happened.

The prosecution also relied on the condition of the body, which had urine and semen discharged from the private parts, as consistent with Modak’s account that the two had been intimate shortly before the shooting. Ballistic examination found that the empty cartridge recovered from the scene had been fired from Arbind’s INSAS rifle, body number 16534414. Call detail records from the personal mobile phones used by the two constables and Modak further corroborated the relationship and contacts among them.

Trial and appeal

In a judgment dated April 30, 2021, the Additional Sessions Judge at Dinhata convicted Raghunandan under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. For murder, he was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. For causing the disappearance of evidence, he received seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was acquitted of the Arms Act charges.

Before the High Court, Raghunandan argued that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 475(1) of the CrPC and that he should have been tried by a Court-Martial. The Bench rejected the challenge, noting that no relevant Central Government rules had been produced to require a Court-Martial trial. It held that Section 475(1) is directory and does not remove the jurisdiction of an otherwise competent criminal court.

The judges also rejected the challenge to the prosecution’s reliance on a single eyewitness. They said a conviction may be based on one witness’s testimony when it is reliable and trustworthy. The Bench considered Modak’s evidence consistent with her Section 164 statement, natural and unsupported by any motive to falsely implicate Raghunandan.

The court noted that Modak had admitted her own involvement in the relationships, thereby implicating herself. It observed that it was inconceivable that a mother of two children would expose her own conduct merely to falsely accuse another person.

The Bench said her account was corroborated by the ballistic report, inquest report, medical evidence, forensic reports and call detail records. Medical evidence established that Arbind died from a gunshot wound that perforated his heart and lungs.

Raghunandan’s alibi was also rejected. It was based on statements from two junior BSF colleagues who said he had been resting in the barracks. The court found those statements unreliable and noted that no official duty records supported the claim.

Justice Banerjee described jealousy over the relationship as the motive for the killing:

“The obvious motive for Raghunandan to kill Arbind was to eliminate Arbind from the triangular illicit relationship between Arbind, Raghunandan and Dasami. This was kind of a revenge taken by Raghunandan against Arbind. His murderous act was obviously prompted by jealousy and urge to enjoy exclusive physical relationship with Dasami by annihilating Arbind.”

The Bench said there was “ample evidence on record to demonstrate that the appellant committed cold-blooded murder of the victim” and found no perversity in the trial court’s assessment of the evidence. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the conviction and sentence in place. The judgment also reiterates that credible testimony from a single eyewitness can sustain a conviction when supported by scientific and circumstantial evidence.