Hostile Witness Retraction Cannot Erase Evidence in Rape-Murder Cases: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has reinforced the 'last seen' doctrine in heinous crimes, ruling that the dishonest retraction of key witnesses cannot automatically invalidate a prosecution's case when corroborated by a consistent chain of circumstantial evidence. In a stern message against the 'culture of compromise,' the Court upheld the life imprisonment of a man for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, emphasizing that judicial statements recorded on oath carry a higher degree of solemnity than police statements.

A division bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Anuj Singh heard the appeal against a 2015 conviction involving the brutal sexual assault and killing of a minor. The Court scrutinized the evidence after primary witnesses, who had initially placed the accused with the victim, turned hostile during the trial, attempting to subvert the judicial process.

Key Takeaways

Integrity of Section 164 Statements

A statement recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat; witnesses must provide credible reasons to depart from such sworn testimony.

Scrutiny of Hostile Witnesses

Courts are not mute spectators when witnesses turn hostile; they must closely examine whether retractions are driven by fear, inducement, or a 'culture of compromise' to bring home the truth.

Application of Last Seen Theory

When the time gap between the accused being seen with the victim and the victim's death is extremely narrow, the burden of explanation shifts to the accused to provide an alibi or explain the circumstances.

Parity in Acquittal Denied

An accused cannot claim parity in acquittal if their specific role or the evidence against them (such as ownership of a recovery at the crime scene) is distinct from an acquitted co-accused.

Judicial Analysis of Witness Retraction and ‘Culture of Compromise’

The Court observed that the retraction by witnesses who had previously informed family members of seeing the appellant with the victim was motivated and dishonest. The bench relied on the principle that the evidence of a hostile witness should not be totally rejected but subjected to close scrutiny.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "A mere denial in Court cannot erase prior statements made by a witness to fellow prosecution witnesses. While the police may force a witness to make a statement to them, they cannot force a statement to be made to a fellow witness which is spontaneous, before the arrival of the Police to the crime scene... Criminal judicial system cannot be overturned by those gullible witnesses who act under pressure, inducement or intimidation."

Addressing the significance of Section 164 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court noted that such statements are recorded on oath to instill sanctity. It held that to permit retraction on flimsy grounds would negate the distinction between statements recorded by police under Section 161 and those by a Judicial Magistrate.

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"The State shall pay a total sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (four lakhs only) to the victim. In the absence of the victim, the State shall pay this amount to the victim's dependents, namely the parents, who have suffered as a result of the crime, in terms of Section 357A, CRPC. The State shall be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the appellant in accordance with law... the concerned trial Court and State shall ensure that the fine amount imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant is recovered. This fine amount, if realized, shall also be remitted in favor of the victim and in her absence, to her dependents namely, her parents."

Ratio

A witness who departs from a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must provide credible reasons for such departure; failing this, the court can rely on such statements as a link in the chain of circumstances. Furthermore, under the 'last seen' doctrine, if the prosecution establishes the presence of the accused with the victim shortly before death, the failure of the accused to offer a satisfactory explanation under Section 313 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 completes the chain of guilt.

Background

The case arose from the 2009 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl in Murshidabad. The victim was intercepted while walking to her grandmother’s house. Parents and neighbors had seen the girl speaking with the appellant and others; subsequently, witnesses saw her as a pillion rider on the appellant's red Hero bicycle. Her body was discovered the next morning hanging in a mango orchard, with medical evidence confirming rape and manual strangulation.

During the trial, witnesses PW 3 and PW 5 turned hostile, denying they saw the appellant with the victim. However, the prosecution successfully demonstrated that these witnesses had spontaneously shared this information with the victim's family before police arrival—a fact that rendered their initial statements relevant under the doctrine of res gestae as per Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court relied on precedents such as Ramesh v. State of Haryana ( "(2017) 1 SCC 529": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 1185) and Vijaya Singh and Another v. State of Uttarakhand ( "2024 SCC OnLine SC 3510": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 792) to emphasize that the testimony of related witnesses is natural and cannot be discarded. Citing Anees v. The State Govt. Of NCT ( "2024 INSC 368": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 42) and State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. ( "(2000) 8 SCC 382": 2000 CaseBase(SC) 885), the High Court held that the appellant's failure to explain his presence at the PO or the recovery of his bicycle from the scene justified an adverse inference. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the life sentence.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRA 519 of 2015
Case Title: Yeasin Sk. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra, Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir, Ms. Soma Mal, Ms. RabiaKhatoon, Ms. June Modak, Ms. MadhuraiSinha, Ms. Upasana Banerjee, Mr. Bisal Roy.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Soumapriya Chowdhury, Mr. Arka Mukherjee.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2957