IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE CRA 453 of 2013

Rabi Murmu

Vs.

The State of West Bengal.

Before: The Hon’ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj

&

The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

For the Appellant : Mr. Moinak Bakshi, Adv.

Ms. Niketa Bhattacharjee, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Madhu Sudan Sur, Adv.

Mr. Manoranjan Mahata, Adv.

CAV On : 14.07.2025 Judgment On : 29.08.2025

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.:-

1. The judgment of conviction 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 was under challenge in this appeal on the grounds, inter alia that the order of conviction of the appellant under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to

suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months etc. was passed without considering the materials on record.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law since no confessional statement of the convict under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded by the investigation officer and further the places of recovery of weapons were not proved since there was no eye witness who saw the appellant to kill his parents. The seizure lists were not proved in accordance with law. Further the record shows that the police personnel accompanied the appellant to the places of occurrence. There was no FSL Report in respect of the seized weapons and other articles. The learned counsel has further pointed out that prosecution could not establish any motive behind the murder. The Doctor being PW12 has submitted that the murder of the father of the appellant could not be done by weapons like “kait’. The offending weapons were neither shown to the said Doctor during post mortem nor during trial. Moreover, the offending weapons were not produced at the time of trial. The FSL Report was not available and as a result the human blood stains on the weapons as well as on other objects were not proved.

3. The learned counsel has further submitted that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not attracted in this case because the confessional statement was not recorded and as such no facts were discovered under Section 27 of the said Act that would connect the chains of circumstances leading to the crime. It is also unclear as to when the convict made such an unrecorded confession. The evidence shows that the convict was under illegal detention, in as much as the arrest memo shows the time of the arrest was at 5:00 P.M. whereas the alleged unrecorded confessional statement leading to the discovery was in the morning. Moreover the sequence narrated by the witnesses shows that the recovery of articles preceded the confession which is contrary to the legal mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovery was not carried forward to prove the involvement of the convict in the crime owing to absence of FSL report and witnesses not proving the seizures. The chain of circumstances remained unlinked and could not prove the prosecution case. Extra judicial confession if any, was not made voluntarily and was not recorded. The unrecorded confession preceded arrest. Weapons were never produced during trial and no FSL report arrived. The weapons were not shown to the autopsy surgeon during autopsy or trial to elicit his opinion.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that the chain of circumstances remains incomplete and as such the prosecution case was not proved beyond doubt. In support of his contention he has referred following judicial decisions.

[2023] 5 S.C.R. 601 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Phool Chand Rathore [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1425 Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 388 Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs. The State of Maharashtra

5. The learned counsel has also pointed out that as per deposition of the defacto-complainant t