Calcutta HC Questions Call Records of Officer Investigating BJP Workers’ Deaths

Swift Summary

• Incident: Sudhir Chandra Paik (65) and Sujit das (23), BJP workers, died at a Muharram village dance competition in East Midnapore’s Khejuri on july 12.Local police attributed the deaths to accidental electrocution, but their families and the district BJP unit alleged communal motives.
• Legal Developments:

– The Calcutta High Court division bench questioned the investigating officer (IO)’s multiple calls to the doctor who conducted the first postmortem.- A second autopsy was ordered by a division bench after discrepancies were noted between the two postmortem reports. The process involved oversight by doctors from SSKM hospital; results were presented before Justice Tirthankar Ghosh’s single bench.
– Earlier,families requested a CBI probe into alleged foul play but were directed toward CID inquiry instead.
– Advocate General Kishore Dutta stated during Monday’s hearing that neither the IO nor postmortem doctor could be suspected but was asked to provide proof for his claims.

• Next Steps: The state has been given until September 15 to submit detailed call-record evidence related to individuals named in FIRs and investigators involved.

!The calcutta high court. (PTI File Photo)

Read More

Indian Opinion Analysis

The inquiry into potential anomalies surrounding two politically sensitive deaths reflects institutional efforts aimed at openness within contentious investigations.Allegations of communal motives have intensified political polarization locally, making impartial legal proceedings crucial for justice. The focus on call records between key individuals-specifically repeated dialogue between an IO and a postmortem doctor-raises pertinent procedural questions about the fairness of initial findings.

While discrepancies in postmortem reports indicate scientific complexity or errors requiring clarification, judicial insistence on additional documentation by September 15 demonstrates cautious progress towards accountability without rushing premature assumptions or verdicts. Whether trust-building can emerge from this ongoing case depends heavily on exhaustive forensic validation coupled with obvious official processes led by both state authorities and judiciary panels.