Last Seen Theory Alone Insufficient, Extra-Judicial Confession Before Police Weak: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man In Wife's Murder Case

Observing that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of murdering his wife, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court ruled that the “last seen together” theory by itself is a weak piece of evidence and cannot form the sole basis of conviction, particularly where there are gaps in the timeline and lack of corroboration.A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das allowed the appeal filed by Shibu Barman @ Kubal, who had been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dinhata. The Bench underscored that an extra-judicial confession allegedly made before police personnel and local witnesses carries weak evidentiary value and must be approached with extreme caution. It further stressed that criminal courts must ensure that the circumstances proved point only to the guilt of the accused and exclude every other hypothesis.The prosecution case began with a complaint lodged on February 17, 2017, after the body of a woman was found lying in an agricultural field with injuries around her neck suggesting strangulation. A case of murder was registered against unknown persons. During investigation, the police arrested the deceased's husband and claimed that he confessed to killing her. Following trial, he was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, including allegations of domestic cruelty, the theory that the deceased was last seen leaving with him on a bicycle, and an alleged confession made at the police station.During trial, family members of the deceased spoke about persistent physical and mental torture by the accused. The couple's minor children stated that their mother had gone with the appellant to recover money from a villager and did not return. The post-mortem report indicated that the death was homicidal, caused by throttling and smothering. The prosecution argued that these circumstances, taken together, completed the chain pointing unmistakably to the appellant's guilt.However, the High Court found several serious inconsistencies and investigative lapses. The Bench noted that although allegations of prolonged cruelty were made, there were no prior complaints, medical records, or independent evidence to substantiate them. The Court observed that such omnibus allegations, without documentary or corroborative proof, could not be treated as decisive evidence of motive.On the “last seen together” theory, the Court found that the deceased was allegedly seen with the appellant on the morning of February 16, while the body was recovered only on the next evening. The post-mortem suggested death within 24–36 hours, leaving a considerable time gap during which the prosecution failed to establish the deceased's whereabouts. The Bench reiterated that last seen evidence is inherently weak and cannot by itself sustain a conviction unless supported by other clinching circumstances.The alleged extra-judicial confession was also disbelieved. The Court observed that a confession made in the presence of police officers is inadmissible except to the limited extent permitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, key police officers connected with the alleged confession were not examined, and the testimonies of witnesses on this aspect did not inspire confidence. The Bench held that such evidence could not safely be relied upon.The Court further took note of the absence of forensic support. Despite visible nail and finger marks on the deceased's neck, no fingerprint or scientific comparison was carried out. Seized materials were not sent for forensic examination, and chemical reports were not produced. These omissions, the Bench said, weakened the prosecution case and left crucial gaps in the chain of circumstances.Reiterating settled criminal law principles, the Court held that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and that an accused is presumed innocent unless guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Since the prosecution failed to present a complete and conclusive chain of evidence, the conviction could not be sustained.Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed that the appellant be released forthwith, subject to compliance with Section 437A of the CrPC.Case: SHIBU BARMAN @ KUBAL VS STATE OF WEST BENGALCase No: CRA 15 OF 2021Click here to read order

Last Seen Theory Alone Insufficient, Extra-Judicial Confession Before Police Weak: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man In Wife's Murder Case

Srinjoy Das

Tags