IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak &

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas DR 3 of 2024 State of West Bengal Vs.

Sagarika Pandit With C.R.A.(DB) 33 of 2025 Sushila Majhi -Versus-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

With C.R.A.(DB) 364 of 2024 Sagarika Pandit -Versus-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Appellant : Mr. Kaushik Gupta, Sr. Adv.

[CRA(DB) 33 of 2025] Mr. Arijit Bhusan Bagchi, Adv.

For the Appellant : Mr. Niladri Sekhar Ghosh, Adv. [CRA(DB) 364 of 2024) Ms. Sompurna Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Sourov Mondal, Adv.

Ms. Laboni Sikdar, Adv.

Mr. Souvik Dey, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P.

Mrs. Anasuya Sinha, Ld. A.P.P.

Mr. Nahid Ahmed, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 28th July, 2025 Judgment On : 27th August, 2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. Both the appeals are filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2024 and 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge POCSO Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Arambagh, Hooghly in connection with POCSO Case No. 6 of 2018.

2. By passing the impugned judgment both the convicts namely, Sagarika Pandit and Sushila Majhi are found guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 302/363/365/201 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. These appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 363, 365 and 201of the Indian Penal Code along with fine of Rs. 5000/- in each of the offences and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for one month.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal is preferred at the behest of the appellants.

4. The story of the prosecution in nutshell is that:

“A complaint was lodged on 03.02.2018 at 3.35 P.M. by the defacto complainant before Khanakul Police Station to the effect that on 02.02.2018 at about 7:00 P.M. his minor daughter (victim) who was aged about 4 years 3 months at that point of time left their house with her mother but did not return. The defacto complainant and others started searching for her everywhere but did not find her. Subsequently, on 07.02.2018 the dead body of the said minor victim girl was found in the bathroom chamber of one Ghantu Singh. These appellants along with other accused Murari Pandit (since deceased) were detained by the local people and it was confessed that they murdered the victim. The accused Murari along with his wife Sagarika was arrested on 09.02.2018 by the Investigating Officer and thereafter on 14.02.2018 the other appellant Sushila Maji, who happens to be the maternal grandfather of the deceased was arrested on the basis of the statement made by other two accused i.e. Murari Pandit and Sagarika Pandit. On the basis of that complaint a police case bearing Khanakul P.S. Case No. 31/18 dated 03.02.2018 was registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency against these appellants along with other deceased accused Murari Pandit under Section 363/365/302/201/376AB/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act.”

5. During trial of the case, the accused Murari Pandit died and as such, the case against that accused was ‘filed for ever’.

6. During trial, prosecution had examined sixteen witnesses and produced documents and materials which were marked as exhibits 1 to 17 and MAT Exhibit I and II in this case. Neither any oral, nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellants.

7. Mr. Kaushik Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has said that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and no circumstance has been established or placed on record to connect these appellants with the offence alleged. It is said by the learned Advocate that the prosecution claims that the victim was sacrificed to a “Deity” for “Tantra Sadhana” but the dea