Failed To Explain Death Of Woman Living With Him: Calcutta High Court Upholds Man's Life Sentence For Murder, Relies On 'Last-Seen' Theory
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man for murdering a woman with whom he was living, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory and the accused's conduct after the incident, clearly established his guilt.A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay dismissed an appeal filed by...
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man for murdering a woman with whom he was living, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen” theory and the accused's conduct after the incident, clearly established his guilt.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay dismissed an appeal filed by Md. Abdul Mottalab Mia challenging a 2014 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipurduar, which had convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, the victim had left her husband due to alleged torture and was living with her father. The appellant later took her away on the promise of marriage and the two began living together. In November 2010, they rented a room at Jharna Busty in Jalpaiguri district.
On November 3, 2010, the victim's son received a phone call from the appellant stating that his mother was unwell and required medical attention. When the son reached the house, he found it locked from outside. Locals later broke open the door in the presence of police and discovered the victim lying dead on a bed with blood oozing from her nose and mouth.
The High Court noted that the victim had been living exclusively with the appellant and was under his control for several months before her death. In such circumstances, the Court held that the appellant was expected to explain how the victim died.
The Court observed:
“The victim was 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 place of occurrence.”
The Bench further found the appellant's conduct suspicious, particularly the contradictory information he gave to different persons after the incident. While he told the victim's son that she was seriously ill, he informed a co-worker that she had died in an accident. The Court held that such contradictory statements revealed the accused's nervousness after the crime.
“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.”
The Court also relied on the last seen theory, noting that the appellant and the victim were seen entering the rented room together shortly before the incident and that the appellant was later seen alone outside the premises early the next morning before disappearing. The Court found that the accused failed to explain these circumstances.
Medical evidence indicated that the victim died due to strangulation, with crushed neck muscles. Blood-stained bedding and clothing were recovered from the room, and the Court observed that a gamcha (towel) or dupatta recovered from the room could have been used to strangle the victim.
Holding that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant, the Court concluded that the trial court's conviction required no interference.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and life sentence were upheld. The Court directed the appellant, who was on bail during the pendency of the appeal, to surrender before the court within 10 days, following which his bail bonds would stand cancelled.
Case: Md. Abdul Mottalab Mia @ Abdul Mottalab Vs. The State of West Bengal
Case No: CRA 614 OF 2014