Failure To Examine Weapon In Circumstantial Murder Case Proves Fatal | Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused Over Missing Links In Motive, Last Seen, And Recovery
Safiya Malik
The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Prasenjit Biswas allowed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of an individual who had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The court set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, directing the appellant's release. It found that the prosecution failed to establish the required chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The court further directed that the accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case and granted him bail under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for six months.
The criminal appeal arose from a conviction rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 01.04.04, dated March 27 and March 29, 2019. The prosecution's case originated from a complaint lodged by the father of a 13-year-old school student who failed to return home after attending school on December 31, 2002. A missing diary was lodged, and subsequent investigation led to the registration of Belda P.S. Case No. 02/03 under Sections 364/302 of the Indian Penal Code on January 4, 2003, following reports that the victim was last seen being taken away by the accused, allegedly due to a prior grudge.
The prosecution submitted that the accused, a resident of the same village as the victim, had kidnapped the child from outside the school, later murdered him, and dumped his body. The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. A total of fifteen witnesses were examined, with various articles marked as exhibits.
Among these witnesses, PW6, a key prosecution witness, stated before the magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she saw the accused carrying the victim on a bicycle. However, during deposition, she only mentioned that the accused was carrying an unidentified schoolboy aged 10-12 years. No eyewitness account was available confirming the act of murder.
The defense raised issues including discrepancies in witness statements, the speculative nature of the circumstantial links, and the inadmissibility of the recovered weapon due to procedural lapses. The defense argued that the three critical links in a circumstantial case—motive, last seen, and recovery of weapon—were not conclusively established.
The prosecution contended that the circumstances formed a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused. It pointed to the medical report, statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the accused’s alleged confession before villagers, followed by the recovery of the weapon and the schoolbag based on the accused's statement.
However, several seizure witnesses turned hostile (PW8, PW9, PW10), casting doubt on the recovery procedure. The Investigating Officer (PW15) admitted in cross-examination that the seized weapon and bag were not labelled and were not sent for forensic analysis. The prosecution failed to conclusively link the weapon to the crime.
The defense submitted that the mere fact that the autopsy surgeon opined the injuries could be caused by a similar weapon does not prove that the seized weapon was used in the crime.
The court stated in clear terms: "It is settled law that circumstances play very important role in the appreciation of evidence." It noted the absence of direct evidence and acknowledged the trial court's conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence.
The court held: "In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilty is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused." It further stated that the chain must be complete to the extent that it excludes every hypothesis consistent with innocence.
The bench noted: "There must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused." and "Moreover, the circumstances should be conclusive in nature."
The court expressed concern over the discrepancies between PW6’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition. It stated: "It is very much difficult to understand that when the witness specifically stated the name of the victim at the time of recording her statement before the Magistrate what prevented her for naming the victim at the time of giving deposition."
Regarding the recovery of the weapon, the court stated: "Failure to get the weapon of offence chemically examined may not be always fatal... But when the case is based on circumstantial evidence... such failure is fatal."
Further, it held: "Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof." and "In the case at hand it is apparent that the motive which has been tried to be established by the prosecution is very weak in nature and which does not justify the prosecution story."
It stressed: "The incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they do not form a chain so complete from which it could be inferred with a degree of certainty that it is the accused and no one else who, within all human probability, committed the crime."
It also stated: "The last seen circumstance did not conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused... there was a time gap between the date and time when the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and discovery of deceased's dead body."
The court concluded: "The appeal, therefore, succeeds."
It set aside the trial court judgment: "The judgement and order of the Trial Court dated 27.03.2019 and 29.03.2019... are hereby set aside."
It directed the release of the appellant: "The conviction of the appellant... is hereby set aside. If he is in correctional home shall now be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case."
It also ordered: "Appellant to take bail for six months under Section 437A of Cr.P.C."
The bench further ordered: "Trial Court Record along with the copy of this judgement be transmitted to the appropriate Court for taking appropriate steps."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Ms. Suchismita Dutta, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Suman De, Advocate
Case Title: Rasan @ Raisan Hansda @ Raison Hansda versus The State of West Bengal
Case Number: C.R.A. 696 of 2019
Bench: Justice Prasenjit Biswas and Justice Debangsu Basak
