When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court

"Lie Given By Accused Just After Commission Of Crime Is Relevant Fact Calling For Adverse Inference, Contradiction Reveals Nervousness After Offence", Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of an accused for murder under Section 302 IPC, holding that when a victim is under the exclusive custody and control of the accused and virtually disconnected from family, the accused owes an explanation as to what transpired, and that contradictory statements made by the accused immediately after the crime reveal guilty conscience and call for adverse inference.

Background of the Case

The case arose from the death of a woman who had abandoned her matrimonial home due to torture and was living with her father PW-12. The appellant Md. Abdul Mottalab Mia took the victim away promising marriage, and she lived with him for three months before her death. On November 1, 2010, at approximately 8:30 PM, the appellant and the victim took possession of a rented room on the third floor of a house owned by PW-8 Abdul Rahaman at Jharna Busty, District Jalpaiguri. They were last seen together entering the premises by PW-9, the landlord's wife and sister of PW-2, the appellant's employer.

On the morning of November 2, 2010, both PW-8 (the landlord) and PW-9 (his wife) saw the appellant alone outside the premises at around 5:30 AM. When questioned about what he was doing outside, the appellant claimed he had woken up early to collect drinking water, though neither witness saw him carrying any water container. The appellant disappeared thereafter and did not report to his workplace at PW-2's furniture shop on November 2 and 3, 2010.

On November 3, 2010, the appellant made contradictory telephone calls to different persons. He called PW-11 (Rahul Islam, the victim's son from her first husband) stating that the victim was extremely sick and needed medical attention. However, he called PW-5 (Idul Islam, his co-worker at the furniture shop) at 6:30 AM claiming that the victim had died in an accident. When PW-11 rushed to Jharna Busty from his house (an hour away by bus), he found the door of the house locked from outside. A number of persons gathered, and in the presence of police, the window was broken. A strong foul smell emanated from inside, and the victim could be seen lying motionless on a cot covered with a mosquito net. The door was then broken open, and the victim was found lying on the bed with blood oozing from her nose and mouth, with blackish blister marks on different parts of her body.

Inquest was conducted at 6:25 PM, and the body was sent for post-mortem the same day at North Bengal Medical College Hospital in Siliguri. The autopsy revealed death by strangulation with neck muscles crushed due to mechanical asphyxia. Blood-stained pillow covers and bed sheets, along with one gamcha (towel) and a dupatta (women's scarf) were recovered from the premises. The Jaigaon Police Station registered FIR No. 364 of 2010, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, and in default, further rigorous imprisonment of six months.

Legal Issues and Court's Observations

The Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay examined the appeal challenging the conviction based on circumstantial evidence including the last seen theory, exclusive custody, contradictory statements, and post-occurrence conduct.

On the critical issue of exclusive control and custody, the Court noted that PW-11 (the victim's son) and PW-12 (the victim's father) testified that the appellant took away the victim after she returned to her paternal home from her matrimonial home, and they offered no resistance. The victim lived consensually with the appellant for three months before her death. "The victim was thus under the exclusive custody of the appellant. The appellant therefore owed an explanation as to what happened to the victim after they checked in at the PO," Justice Mantha held.

The Court addressed the absence of direct evidence of motive, holding that the pervasive control over the victim made up for this absence. "The motive of the appellant to end the life of the victim becomes immaterial in view of that the victim was under the exclusive control of the appellant. The victim was living with the appellant for last three months before her death. The victim was thus virtually disconnected from her son, PW 11 and her father, PW 12. In the present case therefore, it was nearly impossible for PW 11 and 12 to be aware of the conduct of the appellant towards the victim," the Court observed.

Elaborating on this principle, the Court held: "In a given case, the motive of a person may remain with him and his victim. The present is one of such cases where the victim did not reside with her family. Thus, the prosecution could not have adduced the evidence as regards the motive of the appellant."

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Nusrat Parween v. State of Jharkhand (2024 INSC 955), which held that proof of motive assumes great significance in circumstantial evidence cases. "The proof of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence is however not an absolute rule. It only provides one more link to the case of prosecution. In the present case, the pervasive and exclusive control of the appellant over the life and movement of the victim makes up for the absence of motive," Justice Mantha held.

On the crucial link of contradictory statements revealing guilty conscience, the Court analyzed the appellant's conduct immediately after the crime. The appellant informed PW-11 (the victim's son) that his mother needed medical attention, but told PW-5 (his co-worker) that the victim had died in an accident. "It is quite natural that the appellant would not have the courage to inform PW 11 that his mother has died when she was in his custody. PW 11 may be aware of the conduct of the appellant towards his mother. Revealing the correct information to PW 11 may give rise to immediate suspicion in the latter's mind," the Court observed.

The Court further noted: "On the contrary, PW 5 was the coworker of the appellant. The appellant was sure that PW 5 would not immediately suspect that the death of the victim was caused by the appellant. The said contradiction reveals the nervousness of the appellant just after the commission of the offense."

Emphasizing the legal significance of such lies, the Court held: "The lie given out by the accused just after the commission of the crime is a relevant fact which calls for an adverse inference against him."

Regarding the appellant's suspicious conduct on the morning of November 2, 2010, the Court observed that PW-8 and PW-9 saw the appellant outside the premises at different points in time, indicating he was outside for a considerable period. "PW 8 and 9 have not stated that the appellant was having any water drum to carry water. Therefore it can be reasonably inferred that it is unlikely that the appellant had woken up early in the morning to collect water," the Court held, inferring nervousness after commission of the crime from this conduct.

On the last seen theory, the Court rejected the appellant's argument that there was no evidence he was last seen with the victim. "The evidence of PW 9 and PW 8 has clearly established that the appellant took possession of the rented room on 1st of November, 2010 at about 8:30 a.m. PW 2 has confirmed that he introduced and was responsible for the appellant and the victim to take the PO on rent. The appellant and the victim were last seen by PW 9 entering the house. The appellant was thereafter seen early in the morning the next day, both by PW8 and PW9 at 5:30 a.m. alone," Justice Mantha observed.

The Court held that prosecution had discharged its burden of proving the appellant was last seen and stayed with the victim. "The burden therefore shifted on the appellant to demonstrate as to what transpired at the PO. He was in possession of the rented accommodation i.e. the PO. The events in the PO thus fell within his exclusive knowledge. It was thus for the appellant to demonstrate that he was elsewhere than the P.O since after 1st of November, 2010," the Court held.

Addressing the appellant's disappearance and absence from work, the Court noted: "Further, the disappearance of the appellant from the PO coupled with his absence from his workplace on November 2nd and 3rd of 2010 was required to be explained by the appellant. No explanation however has come on record. The only eyewitness to the events at PO after the appellant and victim checked in thereat was the appellant himself."

The Court distinguished Supreme Court decisions in Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1190) and Krishnan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2023 INSC 679), where convictions based solely on last seen theory were set aside. "In the present case as discussed hereinabove, the evidence as regards the pervasive and exclusive control of the appellants over the victim, the calls made by the appellant to PW 5 and PW 11 where he lied to the said witnesses about the death of the victim, the induction of the appellant and victim as tenants at the PO, the presence of the appellant outside the PO in the morning of 2nd November 2nd, 2010 witnessed by PW 8 and PW 9, and the absence of the appellant from his workplace after the commission of the crime furnish positive evidence," the Court held.

On the challenge regarding inadequate examination under Section 313 CrPC, the Court noted that the only incriminating circumstance not put to the appellant was the contradictory calls made to PW-5 and PW-11. Applying the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Naib Din (2001) 8 SCC 578, the Court held: "The accused must demonstrate prejudice by the omission on part of the trial court to put a vital question to him. Omission on part of the trial court to put a question does not ipso facto lead to setting aside of a conviction." Since the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice and the calls were merely one link in the chain of circumstances, the omission was not fatal.

Regarding the non-examination of the post-mortem doctor, the Court held that under Section 294(3) CrPC, where genuineness of a document is not disputed, it may be read in evidence without the author deposing. Since no objection was raised by the appellant to the post-mortem report, and the IO and constable who took the body for autopsy gave evidence, the non-examination was not fatal.

On the recovery of materials used for strangulation, the Court noted: "One gamcha (towel) and dupatta of a women (a longish scarf worn by women) have also been recovered from the PO. The latter may have been used to strangulate the victim. The appellant therefore had the requisite accessories in the form one gamcha and dupatta to strangulate and end the life of the victim. In view of that it was the appellant only who was with the victim at the PO, the irresistible conclusion that flows is that the appellant has killed the victim with the said gamcha and or dupatta available at the PO."

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000. "This Court is of the view that the evidence on record clearly indicates the participation of the appellant in the death of the victim. There is no other conclusion possible in the given facts and circumstances of the case," Justice Mantha held. The Court directed the appellant to surrender within 10 days, cancelled the bail bonds, and discharged the sureties.

Date of Decision: March 12, 2026