Extra-Judicial Confession Before Villagers Cannot Be Dismissed Merely for Want of Police Presence – Calcutta High Court

“Even in the Absence of Direct Eyewitnesses, a Complete Chain of Circumstances Can Prove the Guilt Beyond All Reasonable Doubt” – Calcutta High Court upholding the life imprisonment of three men convicted for the murder of a 23-year-old youth, Samir Kundu, in 2012. The Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta ruled that despite the case being wholly based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution had succeeded in proving an unbroken chain of incriminating facts. Reiterating settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that the absence of a proven motive, minor contradictions in witness statements, or lack of direct eyewitnesses cannot dismantle a tightly formed chain of evidence.

"Where No Other Hypothesis Survives but Guilt, Circumstantial Evidence is Enough for Conviction"

The prosecution's case stemmed from the disappearance of Samir Kundu on 30 October 2012, after he left home with the three accused on motorcycles. His mutilated and decomposed body was discovered the following morning in a paddy field near Mukundapur village. Although no one witnessed the murder, the last seen theory, extra-judicial confessions, recovery of murder weapons, and forensic corroboration created a compelling narrative that directly implicated the appellants.

The High Court held: “It is well settled that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.”

“Extra-Judicial Confessions Made in the Village Square Are Not Inherently Unreliable” – Admissions Before Locals Upheld as Inculpatory

The most contested aspect of the case was the extra-judicial confession made by one of the accused, Papan Sarkar, in the presence of neighbours and local residents. The defence argued it was made under coercion after being beaten. However, the Court found that:

“The confessional statement of Papan was true and voluntarily made before the prosecution witnesses and other local people and it was not the result of coercion, undue influence or threat or assault.”

Notably, Papan initially disclaimed knowledge of the victim’s whereabouts, claiming he had gone to Siliguri, but later confessed that “Bablu and Kalyan killed Samir, and I held his legs”, in the presence of PWs 3, 8, 12, and 14. The Court was unequivocal:

“Such extra-judicial confession, though inherently weak, cannot be ignored when corroborated by other evidence and when made voluntarily before persons who had no reason to falsely implicate the accused.”

“A Stone Stained with Human Blood and a Broken Glass, Recovered at the Accused’s Instance, Need No Further Explanation” – Court Applies Section 27 Evidence Act

During the police investigation, both Papan Sarkar and Kalyan Barui led the police to the recovery of the murder weapons — a blood-stained stone and broken glass — from a paddy field. This was done under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the serological report confirmed the presence of human blood on the items. The Court remarked:

“The recovery of the offending weapons following disclosure by the accused persons, and the presence of human blood, form highly incriminating evidence… No explanation was forthcoming from the accused when questioned under Section 313 CrPC.”

The accused had merely stated “I do not know” or “I am innocent”, offering no alternative explanation for how such items, bearing blood, were found in places identified by them.

“He Who Is Last Seen With the Victim Must Offer a Plausible Explanation or Face Inference of Guilt” – Victim Seen Consuming Alcohol With Accused Shortly Before Murder

The prosecution relied heavily on last seen evidence, brought forth by PWs 11 and 14, both neighbours, who saw Samir with the appellants on 30 October 2012 around 5 PM, consuming liquor in an open field. The Court analysed the credibility of these witnesses and held:

“Despite minor contradictions, the fact that the deceased was seen alive in the company of the appellants shortly before his death, and no satisfactory explanation is given by the accused, supports the prosecution case.”

The postmortem further corroborated this claim, with the doctor confirming that “100 grams of bread with smell of alcohol was found in the stomach”, aligning with witness testimony.

“Motive is Known Only to the Killer – Its Absence Does Not Exonerate the Accused” – Court Dismisses Defence Argument on Motive

The defence repeatedly stressed the lack of motive, but the Court brushed aside this contention by observing:

“Failure to prove motive is of no consequence where the circumstantial evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused persons and nobody else who killed the deceased.”

Citing Kundalabala Surahmnyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Bench emphasized that motive may remain undiscovered, especially in murders involving acquaintances or close friends, as in the present case.

“Silence in the Face of Incriminating Evidence Is Not Innocence” – No Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Hurt the Defence

The Court gave significant weight to the inability or refusal of the accused to respond meaningfully when questioned under Section 313 CrPC. The judgment reads:

“When confronted with evidence of last seen together, extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapons, and forensic findings, the accused gave bare denials and claimed ignorance. Such silence speaks volumes.”

Referring to Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, the Bench reaffirmed that failure to explain circumstances put to the accused can serve as a missing link completing the chain of guilt.

Rejecting the appeals, the Court found the prosecution’s circumstantial case to be complete, coherent, and consistent. However, in a modest relief, the Court directed that the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused during investigation and trial shall be set off against the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 428 CrPC, noting their age and the circumstantial nature of the case.

“Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is affirmed. Appeal being CRA No. 8 of 2016 is, thus, dismissed.”

Date of Judgment: 15 September 2025