The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentences imposed on a couple for murdering a six-and-a-half-year-old girl and concealing her body inside a bag kept under their cot in 2011, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Anuj Singh dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Malay Ghosh and his wife Priya Ghosh, affirming their conviction under Sections 302/34 (murder with common intention) and 201/34 (causing disappearance of evidence with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court held that the circumstances proved by the prosecution formed a complete chain that was consistent only with the guilt of the appellants and excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

“The chain of circumstances of evidence leading to such a conclusion is complete and does not reasonably substantiate any conclusion other than the guilt of the appellants,” the Court observed.

The appeal challenged a January 30, 2012 judgment of the Sessions Judge, Purulia, convicting the couple and the sentence imposed on January 31, 2012. Both had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for murder and seven years' rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence, with the sentences directed to run concurrently.

Background

The case dates back to July 21, 2011, when Tamalika alias Pupun, aged about six-and-a-half years, went to the appellants' residence after returning from private tuition. She was familiar with the couple and frequently visited their room.

When the child's mother went looking for her around 10 to 15 minutes later, Priya Ghosh allegedly denied that the girl had visited their residence. Despite an extensive search by the family and neighbours throughout the evening, the child could not be found.

The next morning, the couple allegedly attempted to leave the residential compound but were intercepted by the child's relatives and others. When the police searched their room, the girl's body was recovered from a blue-black bag kept beneath their cot and covered with pieces of thermocol.

The post-mortem examination established that the child had died due to asphyxia caused by strangulation or throttling, and that her death was homicidal.

The prosecution examined 24 witnesses during the trial. The defence did not examine any witness.

Court's Observations

The High Court examined the evidence concerning the child's entry into the appellants' room, their response when her mother came searching for her, the subsequent recovery of the body and the couple's conduct the following morning.

The Bench attached significance to the testimony of a 10-year-old child witness, who had seen Tamalika enter the appellants' room on the evening of July 21, 2011. Her testimony remained consistent during cross-examination and was corroborated by other witnesses who had heard Tamalika tell her mother that she was going to the appellants' residence.

The Court noted that the child's mother reached the room shortly afterwards and found the door bolted from inside. Priya Ghosh claimed that the child had not visited their house. The Court found that this denial was contradicted by the subsequent recovery of the child's body from the same room.

The Bench also considered the evidence that Malay Ghosh had accompanied the child's father to a railway station on the pretext of searching for the missing girl, while the body remained concealed inside their room. It further noted the testimony of witnesses who stated that the couple attempted to leave the compound early the following morning.

The recovery of the body was supported by several witnesses, who testified that Malay Ghosh produced the key, opened the room and took out the bag from beneath the cot.

The Court also examined the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which both accused had stated that the child was murdered inside their room, although each blamed the other for the killing.

Clarifying the evidentiary value of these statements, the Bench noted that confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC were not substantive evidence in themselves but could be used to corroborate or contradict other evidence. In the present case, the statements corroborated the testimony of the witnesses and helped complete the chain of circumstances.

The Court further observed that the appellants had failed to explain how the child came to be inside their room, how she died there or how her body came to be concealed in a bag beneath their cot.

It held that the prosecution had established the circumstances through witnesses whose evidence had withstood cross-examination.

The Bench also found that the couple had knowingly and intentionally concealed the child's body to screen the murder.

It noted that the body had been placed inside a blue-black bag, covered with thermocol and hidden beneath the cot. The Court further considered the couple's denial that the child had visited their room, the diversion of the search and their attempt to leave the compound the following morning.

Holding that these were deliberate steps to conceal the crime and misdirect the child's parents, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Bench affirmed the judgment of conviction dated January 30, 2012, and the order of sentence dated January 31, 2012, passed by the Sessions Judge, Purulia, and dismissed the appeal.

Case: Malay Ghosh and Anr. v. State of West Bengal