Failure to Explain Possession of Looted Items Strengthens Inference of Guilt: Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Double Murder Dacoity Case

"Failure to Explain Possession of Looted Items Strengthens Inference of Guilt — Recovery, Identification, and Conduct Form Complete Chain of Circumstances", Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi upheld the conviction and life sentence of multiple appellants in the double murder and dacoity case arising out of Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2012 from Katwa.

The Court found the case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, but held that the prosecution had successfully established a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances pointing “unerringly” to the guilt of the accused. The discovery of looted gold ornaments, mobile phone, and weapons—recovered on the basis of disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act—alongside their identification in Test Identification Parades (TIPs) by the victim’s daughters, sealed the prosecution’s case.

“Appellants Failed to Explain Possession of Looted Articles — Adverse Inference Warranted”

Recovery from Accused’s Homes, Leading to Identification by Victims' Kin, Becomes Incriminating Evidence

The conviction was based not on eyewitness testimony, but a well-corroborated network of circumstances. According to the Court, the failure of the accused to explain how stolen items—like Rekha Rani Roy’s gold jewellery, mobile phone, and wristwatch—were found in their possession so soon after the incident, justifies drawing a strong adverse inference.

“A necessary fallout of such omission on the part of the appellants gives rise to a strong and unimpeachable proposition that the appellants committed dacoity at the house of Rekha Rani Roy and in doing so, being resisted, they committed murder of the landlady and one of her tenant who came in the way,” the Court noted [Para 54].

The appellants’ blanket denials under Section 313 CrPC were deemed insufficient. Their statements were carefully recorded, and they were specifically confronted with the material evidence—including recoveries made from their own homes.

Medical Evidence Established Homicidal Death Beyond Doubt — Cut-Throat Injuries Sufficient to Cause Death

The autopsy surgeon (PW13) unequivocally stated that both victims died due to deep cut-throat injuries involving vital neck structures—trachea, larynx, thyroid and cricoid cartilages—which were “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death”. These findings were supported by inquest reports, photographic evidence, and witness testimonies from both family members and police officers.

“We have no hesitation to hold that the two victims died of the injuries inflicted upon them... such deaths were homicidal in nature,” the Bench concluded [Para 48].

The doctor further confirmed that the injuries could have been caused by the sharp weapons (knives and daos) recovered from the accused, thereby linking the weapons to the crime [Paras 33–34].

Court Rejects Defence of Fabricated Recovery — Distinguishes Supreme Court’s Ruling in Madhu v. Kerala

The defence relied heavily on Madhu v. State of Kerala [(2012) 2 SCC 399], arguing that the presence of earrings on the body of one victim belied the prosecution’s claim of dacoity and murder. However, the High Court carefully distinguished the precedent, holding that Madhu was based on poor handling of evidence and dubious recovery procedures—none of which existed in the present case.

“In the case at hand, however, no such discrepancy was demonstrated… The confessional statements of the appellants were recorded well before hand. There is no evidence on record that the witnesses to such recovery knew of such statement or recovery...” [Para 57].

The Court found the chain of events in the present case to be legally unassailable, with recoveries supported by independent witnesses, valid TIPs conducted by a Magistrate, and corroboration from forensic and medical evidence.

Victims' Family and Tenant’s Live-In Partner Provided Key Circumstantial Evidence of Accused’s Presence and Motive

Testimonies of PW2 and PW3, daughters of victim Rekha Rani Roy, as well as PW4 Rupak Bairagya, the live-in partner of deceased Gouri Majhi, formed a critical part of the circumstantial chain. PW4 specifically saw some of the accused—including Krishna Kanta Dhar—speaking with the landlady on the evening of the murder, under the pretext of discussing a tenancy arrangement.

Moreover, PW5, the son-in-law of the victim, was a witness to multiple recoveries from the homes of different accused, and signed several seizure memos along with other independent witnesses. The Magistrate who conducted the TIP (PW12) affirmed that both daughters correctly identified the stolen articles from among dummy items, further reinforcing credibility.

“Each Link in the Chain Points Inexorably to Guilt” – High Court Declines Interference with Conviction

Having thoroughly examined the medical, documentary, and testimonial evidence, the Division Bench observed:

“We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. We affirm the same” [Para 58].

Accordingly, the Court dismissed all three criminal appeals and confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 396/34 IPC, along with one year simple imprisonment under Section 448/34 IPC, and five years under Section 412/34 IPC, to run concurrently.

The accused were granted the benefit of set-off under Section 428 CrPC for the time spent in custody during investigation and trial.

Date of Decision: 04 February 2026