A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has dismissed BSF constable C.T. Raghunandan’s appeal and upheld his conviction and life sentence for the 2018 murder of fellow constable Arbind Kumar in Cooch Behar district. In its decision reported from Jalpaiguri on November 13, 2026, the court accepted the finding that jealousy over a relationship involving the two constables and Dasami Modak was the motive.
Justices Arijit Banerjee and Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), sitting at the Circuit Bench in Jalpaiguri, ruled in criminal appeal CRA/22/2021. They upheld the trial court’s finding that Raghunandan shot Arbind with Arbind’s service INSAS rifle near the Durga Nagar Border Outpost on the night of January 24, 2018, and later concealed his body.
The prosecution account
Arbind was on duty at Point Alpha-9 under the Durga Nagar BOP. At around 10:00–10:30 pm, a nearby BSF constable heard a sound resembling a bomb explosion. A search began after Arbind did not respond over the radio. 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 CrPC, she said she had been in a physical relationship with both constables. She testified that she went to meet Arbind after receiving a pre-arranged torchlight signal. According to her account, Raghunandan arrived while she and Arbind were together and shot Arbind in the chest at point-blank range with Arbind’s service rifle. She said Raghunandan threatened to kill her and her children if she disclosed the incident.
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 of intimacy shortly before the shooting. Ballistic examination found that the empty cartridge recovered at 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 also corroborated their contacts and the relationships described in the case.
Trial judgment and appeal
On April 30, 2021, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dinhata, convicted Raghunandan under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. He received imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for murder and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of ₹1 lakh, for causing the disappearance of evidence. The sentences were to run concurrently. He was acquitted of the Arms Act charges.
Raghunandan argued in the High Court that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 475(1) of the CrPC and that the case should have been tried by a Court-Martial. The Bench rejected that challenge, noting that no relevant Central Government rules had been produced to require a Court-Martial trial. It held that the provision is directory and does not remove the jurisdiction of an otherwise competent criminal court.
The judges also held that a conviction may rest on the testimony of a single eyewitness when that evidence is reliable and trustworthy. They found Modak’s testimony consistent with her Section 164 statement, natural, and without a motive to falsely implicate Raghunandan. The Bench noted that she had admitted her own involvement in the relationships, and said it was inconceivable that a mother of two children would expose her own conduct merely to falsely accuse someone else.
The court found corroboration in the ballistic, inquest, medical and forensic evidence, as well as the call detail records. The medical evidence showed that Arbind died from a gunshot wound that perforated his heart and lungs. The Bench rejected the alibi based on statements from two junior BSF colleagues who said Raghunandan had been resting in the barracks, finding the statements unreliable and unsupported by official duty records.
Court’s conclusion
Justice Banerjee described the motive as jealousy over the relationship, stating: “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.
