The Calcutta High Court, upholding established precedents, held that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of facts consistent only with the accused’s guilt. Extrajudicial confessions before villagers and confessions of co-accused, without independent corroboration, cannot alone sustain a conviction. This judgment, binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal and persuasive for other High Courts, reaffirms the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and clarifies the limited value of extra-judicial and co-accused statements under the Evidence Act.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA(DB)/33/2025 of SUSHILA MAJHI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR |
| CNR | WBCHCA0039392025 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Justice Prasenjit Biswas |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Justice Debangsu Basak |
| Court | Calcutta High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Side) |
| Bench | Justice Debangsu Basak & Justice Prasenjit Biswas |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC & POCSO Act, Evidence Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The prosecution must establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances consistent only with guilt (Sharad panchsheel). Extrajudicial confessions before public witnesses and co-accused statements, absent independent corroboration, cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Material inconsistencies in “last seen” evidence, forensic reports, and seizure details break the chain. Conviction on suspicion or incomplete chain violates the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A four-year-old girl went missing on 02-02-2018; body recovered from a septic tank on 07-02-2018. Accused Murari Pandit and Sagarika Pandit allegedly confessed to villagers; Sushila Majhi arrested on their statements. Prosecution examined 16 witnesses; no defence evidence. Convicted under Sections 302/363/365/201 IPC and Sections 4/6 POCSO Act; sentenced to death and rigorous imprisonment. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that an unbroken chain of circumstances, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, is mandatory for conviction in circumstantial cases.
- Clarifies that extrajudicial confessions before non-official villagers require independent corroboration to be reliable.
- Affirms that co-accused statements under Section 30, Evidence Act, are not substantive proof and cannot alone sustain guilt.
- Highlights that inconsistencies in “last seen” accounts, forensic identification, and seizure evidence break the chain and mandate acquittal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Recalled the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda): circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude other hypotheses, and form a complete chain.
- Identified material gaps—inconsistent FIR vs. depositions on who was “last seen” with the victim; failure of forensic lab to identify blood; delayed and uncorroborated seizure of slippers.
- Examined extrajudicial confessions before villagers under strict scrutiny; witnesses failed to confirm any confession at trial.
- Applied Section 30, Evidence Act: co-accused confessions not substantive and need independent corroboration.
- Emphasised presumption of innocence and proof beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion or probabilities insufficient for conviction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No direct evidence or precise cut injuries to support “Tantra Sadhana” or sacrifice theory.
- Extrajudicial confession alleged but none of the seizure witnesses corroborated it.
- Co-accused statements insufficient to convict without independent proof.
- Chain of circumstances incomplete; no reliable link to appellants.
Respondent
- Prosecution adduced cogent oral and documentary evidence.
- Offence was diabolical, involving a minor; trial court’s findings should not be interfered with.
Factual Background
- A four-year-old girl went missing from home on 02-02-2018; father lodged an FIR on 03-02-2018.
- On 07-02-2018, her body was found in the septic tank of a cowshed owned by accused Murari and Sagarika.
- Murari and Sagarika were caught by villagers and allegedly confessed; arrested on 09-02-2018. Sushila Majhi was arrested on 14-02-2018 based on their statements.
- Charges framed under Sections 302/363/365/201 IPC and Sections 4/6 POCSO Act; no defence evidence at trial.
- Trial court convicted all three and sentenced them to death (Section 302 IPC) and rigorous imprisonment.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (murder) and Sections 363, 365, 201 IPC (kidnapping, causing disappearance of evidence).
- Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault and punishment for abetment).
- Section 30 Indian Evidence Act (confession by co-accused): admissible only to corroborate independent evidence, not substantive proof.
- Emphasised proof beyond reasonable doubt as inviolable criminal standard.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Justice Debangsu Basak concurred fully, agreeing on the necessity of a complete chain of circumstances, strict scrutiny for extrajudicial confessions, and the limited value of co-accused statements.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – affirms established jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence and confession safeguards.
Citations
- Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1951) 2 SCC 71
- State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 746
- Deepak Bhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. The State of Gujarat, (2019) 16 SCC 547
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 4 SCC 605