Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Ananya Bandyopadhyay, JJ.
Bulu Bag & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2016
Decided On : 18-01-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - INTERPRETATION - FAILURE TO EXPLAIN CIRCUMSTANCES - INFERENCE - SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - STATEMENT OF ACCUSED - USE AS EVIDENCE - SECTION 437A OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - RELEASE ON BAIL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of the murder of the victim, Asima Maity, who was married to Mithun Bag, the son of appellant Nilkanta Bag. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the extra-judicial confession of appellant Bulu Bag, the testimony of eyewitnesses, and the post-mortem report. The appellants denied the charges and claimed that the victim's death was accidental.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances necessary to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The medical evidence was contradictory and inconclusive, and the eyewitnesses' testimony was unreliable. The court also held that the extra-judicial confession of appellant Bulu Bag was inadmissible in law and could not be used against the appellants. The court further held that the appellants were not required to explain the circumstances of the victim's death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act since the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution established a chain of circumstances sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the medical evidence was reliable and sufficient to establish the cause of the victim's death? 3. Whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable and sufficient to identify the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime? 4. Whether the extra-judicial confession of appellant Bulu Bag was admissible in law and could be used against the appellants? 5. Whether the appellants were required to explain the circumstances of the victim's death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution failed to establish a chain of circumstances sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. The medical evidence was contradictory and inconclusive and could not be relied upon to establish the cause of the victim's death. 3. The testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable and could not be relied upon to identify the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. 4. The extra-judicial confession of appellant Bulu Bag was inadmissible in law and could not be used against the appellants. 5. The appellants were not required to explain the circumstances of the victim's death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act since the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges of murder. The appellants were ordered to be released on bail in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
JUDGMENT
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. - The appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-1, Tamluk in Sessions Trial No. 3(5) of 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 160(3) 2013 convicting the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case emanated from a complaint dated 24.11.2012 wherein the complainant Sambhu Maity's daughter deceased victim Asima Maity (Bag) @ Manasi was married to Mithun Bag son of Nilkanta Bag village of Gourangapur within the jurisdiction of Tamluk Police Station about one and half years ago out of an affair between them. His daughter continued with her conjugal life at the matrimonial house with her husband Mithun Bag who along with his father and mother aspersed the character of his daughter abusing and assaulting her with further threat to murder her. The complainant used to persuade her daughter to continue with her married life disregarding the aforesaid incident and also the enticement of her father-in-law since he wanted her to lead a happy married life. On 24.11.2012 at 4.30 A.M. relatives of his daughter's father-in-law informed him over phone that his daughter was burnt. The complainant along with his wife and other relatives reached the matrimonial house of his daughter at about 6.30 a.m and found her burnt body lying on her belly in front of the stair case of the verandah. He found spot of blood stain on the floor. His daughter's tongue was placed out and she was burnt completely from her head to foot sole, roasted and shrunk. The attic of the house smelled of kerosene of certain burnt things. He came to know from the local people at about 11/11.30 p.m the night before they heard a clamour. At about 3.30 a.m to 4.00 a.m the attic of the house was seen to be set on fire. The dead body of his daughter was found in the aforesaid condition after the fire was extinguished. The complainant strongly believed that the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of her daughter conspired and murdered her through strangulation and, thereafter, in order to suppress the incident and to hide the evidence set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her body at the attic and further prayed for appropriate steps to punish the murderers of his daughter.
3. Based on the written complaint case No. 599/2012 dated 24.11.2012 under Section 498A/302/201/34 IPC was instituted against the appellants. The formal FIR was registered against the appellants i.e. Mithun Bag, Nilkanta Bag and Bulu Bag and the investigation ended in submission of charge-sheet No. 44/2013 dated 12.12.2013 under Section 498A/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 26 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.
5. The Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted the incident was not seen by anyone whereby the victim lady was murdered by the appellants. It had been alleged the incident took place at the garret. However, the dead body of the victim lady was found at the stair case as stated by the witnesses. The place of occurrence was not established, since the attic was found to be burnt. The prosecution relied on the extra judicial confession of the accused which was inadmissible in law and the instant case based on circumstantial evidences failed to create the chain of circumstances. The defence of the appellants was not considered by the learned trial judge. The prosecution failed to establish the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the evidence of P.W.16 revealed the nature of the incident to be accidental. He had stated that victim wife of the appellant Mithun Bag led a peaceful life in her matrimonial house. He further argued that P.W.14 had deposed he could not recollect wheth
In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a chain of circumstances that is so complete and conclusive as to leave no reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused....
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an ad....
1.An accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence, provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, complete chain of events and circumsta....
The prosecution must establish circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt to support a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act will apply to those cases where prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.(2) When a case is resting on circumstan....
The conviction for murder was overturned due to unreliable witness testimony and significant doubts raised by the delayed FIR, emphasizing the need for consistent and credible evidence.
Conviction must be based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence; lack of motive and conflicting witness statements create reasonable doubt dismissing the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
