Calcutta High Court Acquits Two In Minor's Rape-Murder Case, Says Juvenile Co-Accused's Extra-Judicial Confession Cannot Sustain Conviction

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of two men in a 2014 minor rape and murder case, ruling that the trial court wrongly relied on the alleged extra-judicial confession of a juvenile co-accused to convict them. While finding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court also accepted the plea of juvenility raised by one of the appellants and held that his trial before a Sessions Court was without jurisdiction.A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray allowed the appeals filed by Sk. Rafijul alias Tutul and Ukil Ali alias Akil Ali, setting aside their conviction under Sections 364, 302, 376D and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.The prosecution case was that on October 11, 2014, the victim left her house after receiving a telephone call from her friend, a child in conflict with law (CCL). It was alleged that the juvenile handed the victim over to her boyfriend Rafijul and his associates, who abducted her in a Maruti van. The victim's body was recovered the following morning beside the Orissa Trunk Road. The trial court had convicted three accused primarily on the basis of the alleged confession made by the juvenile co-accused, the "last seen together" theory, recovery of the victim's mobile phone and other surrounding circumstances.Allowing the appeals, the High Court found that the trial court had overlooked fundamental deficiencies in the prosecution case.The Bench observed that the prosecution's case rested substantially on the alleged extra-judicial confession of the juvenile co-accused before the victim's family members and villagers. Referring to settled law, the Court reiterated that while an extra-judicial confession is admissible in limited circumstances, the confession of a co-accused cannot by itself become the foundation for convicting another accused."It is well settled that such extra judicial confession of a co-accused is the weakest piece of evidence and there must be some substantive piece of evidence in support of such extra-judicial confession," the Court observed.The Bench further held that the alleged confession itself lacked voluntariness. It noted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses showed that the juvenile initially refused to disclose anything and allegedly confessed only after being repeatedly questioned and pressurised by her father and local villagers."In view of the above the alleged extra judicial confession made by 'S' cannot be said to be a legal one and is thus not acceptable in the eye of law," the Court held.The Court also rejected the prosecution's reliance on the "last seen together" theory.It noted that although one witness claimed during trial that he had seen the victim approaching a Maruti van in which the accused were waiting, this fact did not appear in his earlier statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and constituted a material improvement. Moreover, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and the witness identified the accused for the first time in court after a considerable lapse of time.The Bench observed that there was no evidence showing that the victim was actually seen in the company of the appellants before her death.The High Court also found serious gaps in the prosecution's other circumstantial evidence. Although it was claimed that the victim's mobile phone had been recovered from Rafijul, the seizure witnesses turned hostile, the phone was never identified by the victim's parents during trial, and the call detail records relied upon by the prosecution were never exhibited.Similarly, the forensic evidence failed to advance the prosecution's case. While blood stains and semen were allegedly found inside the seized vehicle, the FSL report remained inconclusive and no DNA matched the appellants with the biological samples collected from the victim.Reiterating the settled principles governing convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the accused."There are circumstances/events, but... the chain of events is not complete and sometimes we have found that the chain is broken and therefore, the conviction cannot be upheld on the basis of such circumstantial evidence," the Court observed.Holding that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate these shortcomings, the Bench concluded that it had erred in relying upon the co-accused's confession, the unproved recovery of the mobile phone and the incomplete "last seen" evidence as clinching circumstances against the appellants.The Court also accepted the plea of juvenility raised by appellant Ukil Ali during the pendency of the appeal. Referring to the inquiry conducted by the Chief...

Calcutta High Court Acquits Two In Minor's Rape-Murder Case, Says Juvenile Co-Accused's Extra-Judicial Confession Cannot Sustain Conviction

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Srinjoy Das

Calcutta High Court Acquits Two In Minor's Rape-Murder Case, Says Juvenile Co-Accused's Extra-Judicial Confession Cannot Sustain Conviction

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers