Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained in law. The court directed that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Purulia, be set aside and that the appellant be acquitted of all charges and released from custody if not required in any other case.

The matter arose out of Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2012, Sessions Case No. 237 of 2012 before the Sessions Judge, Purulia. The appellant had been convicted on 15.05.2013 and sentenced on 16.05.2013 to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000, with a default sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The conviction was premised on charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, pertaining to the murder of his parents and alleged attempts to conceal the offence.

Also Read: Telangana High Court | ‘Absconding’ Alone No Ground for NBW at Summons Stage | Non-Bailable Warrants a Last Resort Under BNSS

The appellant challenged this conviction on several grounds. His counsel submitted that the trial court had erred in relying upon extra-judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence that lacked corroboration. It was argued that no confessional statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was properly recorded, nor were the recoveries made in accordance with law. The defence maintained that there were no eye-witnesses to the murders, and the seizure lists produced were not proved as per legal requirements. Additionally, the absence of any Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report meant that the alleged bloodstains on seized weapons and articles could not be established.

The defence further submitted that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the crime. The medical evidence indicated that the father’s injuries could not have been inflicted by the weapon described. Importantly, the alleged offending weapons were neither shown to the post-mortem doctor nor produced in court during trial. The confessions relied upon were claimed to be unrecorded, involuntary, and made while the appellant was in illegal custody, casting doubt on their admissibility.

The appellant’s counsel argued that contradictions existed in the timing and content of the First Information Report (FIR). The de facto complainant deposed that the FIR was lodged on 16.05.2012, but the scribe admitted arriving at the scene at 10:00 A.M., causing inconsistencies regarding the sequence of events. Witness accounts suggested that the appellant had gone to the police station in the morning, reported the incident, and later accompanied the police to the place of occurrence. The appellant was arrested at 5:00 P.M. from his in-laws’ house, raising doubts about his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time.

The State opposed the appeal, submitting that fourteen prosecution witnesses had been examined and their depositions supported the case. According to the State, the appellant himself informed the police of the murders, led them to the places of occurrence, and recovered weapons from concealment. He was also said to have confessed before local witnesses and handed over his bloodstained clothes. The prosecution asserted that the chain of circumstances was intact, corroborated by medical evidence, and unaffected by minor discrepancies.

The Bench noted that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession. The prosecution’s reliance on these elements required strict scrutiny, especially given the absence of direct eyewitness testimony.

The court recorded its reasoning in extensive detail, quoting established principles of law governing extra-judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence. Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, delivering the judgment, stated: “The instant case is based purely on circumstantial evidence, and further the prosecution has relied upon some extra judicial confession to establish the guilt of the appellant. Needless to mention, the extra judicial confession is considered as a weak piece of evidence. However, that does not mean that conviction cannot be based on such extra judicial confession.”

Referring to precedents, the court observed: “An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon the reliability of the witness to whom it is made.”

The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604, and Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403. These cases laid down that extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence requiring corroboration, must be voluntary, and must inspire confidence.

In the present case, the court recorded serious doubts. It noted: “When such alleged extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant before the above witnesses, the police was very much present at the spot. Therefore, it cannot be said that such extra judicial confessions were made by the appellant in the absence of the police authority. In other words, the vital question whether or not such extra judicial confession was made by the appellant free from influence, threat or intimidation cannot be ascertained.”

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders SIT Inquiry | Vantara Wildlife Centre’s Affairs and Animal Acquisition to Be Examined Under Wildlife (Protection) Act and CITES

On the recovery of weapons, the court stated: “It is further found that the weapons were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination but no reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory were received to that effect that the weapons contained human blood. Furthermore, the extra judicial confession on which the prosecution has heavily relied upon was made by the appellant in presence of the police personnel.”

The Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. “The prosecution is unable to show that chains of circumstances or the events are complete which only point to the guilt of the accused.”

The court held: “Considering all materials on record, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant Rabi Murmu. In view of the above discussion the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2013 and 16.05.2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2012, Sessions Case No. 237 of 2012 of conviction is set aside. The appellant Rabi Murmu is acquitted from the charges of the case and be set at liberty at once. The accused be released from the custody if he is not wanted in any other case.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Moinak Bakshi, Advocate; Ms. Niketa Bhattacharjee, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur, Advocate; Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Advocate

Case Title: Rabi Murmu v. The State of West Bengal

Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:1678-DB

Case Number: CRA 453 of 2013

Bench: Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj, Justice Apurba Sinha Ray