Confession Without Corroboration Cannot Secure Conviction: Calcutta High Court Acquits All Accused in Dismembered Body Murder

In a landmark judgment Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi acquitted three individuals—Surajit Deb, Lipika Poddar, and Sanjoy Biswas—who had been sentenced to death by the trial court for the brutal murder of a woman. The Court categorically held, “Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.” This decision, arising out of Death Reference No. 04 of 2019, emphatically reaffirmed the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that capital punishment cannot be founded on weak and inconclusive circumstantial evidence.

The case stemmed from the gruesome discovery of a dismembered female body near Sealdah Railway Station in May 2014. The police recovered the body parts wrapped in a red quilt and packed in a trolley bag and school bag. Based on circumstantial evidence, including a cash memo found in the luggage and alleged statements of one accused under Section 164 CrPC, the trial court awarded all three accused death penalty under Sections 302/201/120B IPC.

The High Court, however, quashed the conviction and death sentence after thoroughly scrutinising the chain of evidence, observing glaring gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, Jayanti Deb, was murdered by her husband, Surajit Deb, with the connivance of his partner Lipika Poddar. The third accused, Sanjoy Biswas, was accused of assisting in the disposal of the dead body after dismembering it. The entire case hinged upon circumstantial evidence, particularly the ‘last seen theory’, recovery of material objects, and a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

On Circumstantial Evidence:

The Court stressed the need for a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances to convict an accused on circumstantial evidence. It cited the principle laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, stating, “The chain of circumstances must be so complete that it leads only to one hypothesis, namely, the guilt of the accused.”

The Bench found, “No credible evidence establishes the presence of any of the appellants at or near the scene of crime within a reasonable proximity of the incident,” and that, “The prosecution’s version was riddled with conjectures, contradictions, and significant omissions.”

On the ‘Last Seen Theory’:

The Court categorically rejected the ‘last seen’ argument. “The prosecution could not establish any credible evidence showing the deceased was last seen with any of the accused. The strained relationship between husband and wife is not enough to hold guilt,” the Court clarified.

On the Section 164 CrPC Statement:

Regarding the alleged confession of Sanjoy Biswas under Section 164 CrPC, the Court made a sharp observation: “A partial, uncorroborated statement implicating only disposal of the body without proof of the murder cannot form the foundation of a conviction.” Noting that the statement had not been tested in cross-examination and had inconsistencies, the Court ruled, “Such a statement is exculpatory in nature and cannot be equated with a confession.”

On the Recovery of Blood-Stained Articles:

Addressing the recovery of alleged incriminating articles, the Court observed, “The recoveries are legally inconsequential as they lack corroboration, were not proven through proper procedure, and were not even confronted to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.” The Bench further noted procedural lapses in the seizure process, undermining the prosecution’s credibility.

On Death Penalty and the 'Rarest of Rare' Doctrine:

The Court firmly reiterated, “Death penalty is reserved for the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, where guilt is proven conclusively beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of direct evidence and with broken links in circumstantial evidence, awarding death penalty amounts to a travesty of justice.”

Setting aside the conviction, the Court ordered: “The impugned judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence are hereby quashed. The death sentence awarded to the appellants cannot be sustained even, less to talk of its confirmation. The appellants are acquitted of all charges.”

The Court directed the immediate release of the accused, subject to their furnishing bonds under Section 437A CrPC. It also ordered correctional homes to update records cancelling the death penalty awarded to the accused.

This judgment stands as a powerful reminder of the fundamental criminal law principle that no person shall be convicted on the basis of incomplete or weak circumstantial evidence. The High Court’s emphasis on procedural safeguards, the necessity of a complete evidentiary chain, and the cautious application of the death penalty reflects its commitment to ensuring justice remains anchored in fairness and legal certainty.

The ruling reinforces that even in heinous cases, courts must adhere strictly to the burden of proof, protecting individual rights and upholding the highest standards of criminal justice.

Date of Decision: 17th July 2025