Calcutta HC: Conviction Affirmed for Couple Who Murdered Child and Concealed Body in Bag

The High Court at Calcutta has upheld the life imprisonment of a couple for the brutal murder of a six-and-a-half-year-old child, ruling that the failure to explain incriminating facts within their special knowledge under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 sealed the chain of circumstantial evidence. In a harrowing case of betrayal of trust, the Court found the 'panchsheel' principles of proof established through the child's entry into the appellants' room and the subsequent recovery of her body from a bag hidden under their cot.

Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Anuj Singh heard the appeal challenging the conviction of Malay Ghosh and Priya Ghosh. The bench analyzed whether the prosecution had successfully bridged the gap between the child last being seen entering the appellants' residence and the discovery of her strangled remains the following morning. The Court maintained that the false denials and attempts to flee by the appellants served as additional links in an already robust chain of circumstances.

Judicial Scrutiny of Circumstantial Evidence

The Court scrutinized the evidence of PW-7, a 10-year-old friend of the deceased, who saw the victim enter the appellants' house. The bench relied on the precedent set in Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka ( "(2001) 9 SCC 129, paragraph 5": 2001 CaseBase(SC) 1650), noting that child witness testimony must be handled with care to exclude tutoring. The judges observed that the child's entry was further corroborated by the mother, PW-10, who found the appellants' door bolted from inside minutes later.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The entry of the victim girl inside the room of the appellants was soon followed by the mother, PW10, reaching the room of the appellants, who found that the door was bolted from inside. On inquiry, PW10 was told by the Appellant No. 2 that the child had not come. The evidence of PW-10, read with the discovery of the dead body from the said room, establishes that the appellants were hiding the fact that the child was inside the room. The immediate response of the appellants was false and points only towards the culpability of the appellants."

Application of Section 106 Evidence Act

The bench heavily emphasized the appellants' failure to account for the death occurring in their exclusive domain. Referring to Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra ( "(2006) 10 SCC 681, paragraph 15": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 500) and Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar ( "(2021) 10 SCC 725 Paragraph 22": 2021 CaseBase(SC) 375), the Court noted that the burden of proof shifted to the appellants once the prosecution established the child's presence in their room and the recovery of the body.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The law obliges the inmates of such a house to explain the facts which lie within their special knowledge. If no such explanation is forthcoming, the inference of guilt stands satisfied... the recovery of Tamalika's body from the appellants’ room clearly shifted the onus of proof upon the appellants to explain the circumstances which the appellants failed."

Court Directions

The Court has following directions:

"In the result, we hold that the prosecution has proved the charges under Section 302/34 and Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 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. Consequently, the judgment of conviction dated January 30, 2012, and the order of sentence dated January 31, 2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia, in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2011 arising out of Sessions Case No. 235 of 2011, are hereby affirmed in their entirety... If any of the appellants are currently on bail, their bail bond shall stand forfeited and/or cancelled forthwith. The appellants are directed to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia, within a period of 3 weeks from date, to serve out the remaining period of their sentence, failing which, the learned Sessions Judge shall take immediate steps, including issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest, to secure custody of the convicts in accordance with law."

Background

The case arose on July 21, 2011, when a 6.5-year-old girl went to her neighbor's room in Raghunathpur to play and never returned. Despite a night-long search, her body was discovered the next morning in a blue-black bag hidden under a cot in the appellants' room. Medical evidence provided by PW-17 confirmed death by strangulation. The prosecution relied on the 'last seen' theory and statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure. The appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient and motive was absent, citing cases like Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( "(1984) 4 SCC 116, paragraph 153": 1984 CaseBase(SC) 194) to challenge the circumstantial chain. However, the High Court distinguished these precedents, finding that the 'panchsheel' principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ( "(1984) 4 SCC 116, paragraph 153": 1984 CaseBase(SC) 194) were fully met. The appeal was dismissed, and the life sentences were affirmed.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2012
Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:1855-DB
Case Title: Malay Ghosh and Anr. v. State of West Bengal.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Faziur Rahaman, Mr. R. Hahaman, Ms. Sampurna Ghosh, Mr. Saptak Naskar, Ms. Sananda Bhattacharjee, Mr. Debendra Nath Saha, Mr. Debraj Porey, Ms. Sukanya Sahoo, Mr. Parichay Pathak, Ms. Joshika Chatterjee, Advocates; Mr. Sekhar Basu, Ld. Sr. Adv., Ms. Munmun Tewary, Mr. Gourav Sarkar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajendra Banerjee, Mr. Aditya Ratan Tiwari, Mr. Arka Naha, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2953