Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Calcutta HC Acquits Two In Rape-Murder Case

In a stern rebuke of investigative gaps and unreliable witness testimonies, the Calcutta High Court has set aside the life imprisonment of two individuals, ruling that the 'last seen theory' cannot form the sole basis for conviction without strong corroboration. The Court emphasized that a substantial time gap between the accused being last seen with the victim and the estimated time of death shatters the chain of circumstantial evidence, especially when forensic links are conspicuously missing.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Anuj Singh heard the appeal challenging a trial court judgment that had convicted the appellants for the gang rape and murder of an 18-year-old girl suffering from epilepsy. The High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with material contradictions and procedural lapses that failed to meet the high threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaways

Circumstantial Evidence Threshold

Suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot serve as a substitute for legal proof in criminal jurisprudence.

Limitations of Last Seen Theory

Where a significant time gap exists between the last sighting and the time of death, the possibility of third-party intervention must be ruled out by the prosecution.

Mandatory Forensic Corroboration

In cases lacking direct eyewitnesses, the failure to conduct forensic examinations (FSL) on physical samples constitutes a fatal flaw in the investigation.

Witness Credibility Standards

Material contradictions between a witness's examination-in-chief and cross-examination render their testimony unreliable and potentially false.

Court Rejects Unreliable Testimonies and Faulty Investigation

The Court meticulously analyzed the testimonies of PW 7, PW 8, and PW 9, finding them to be "contradictory and tutored." It observed that PW 7's claim of seeing the appellants at the place of occurrence was negated during cross-examination, while PW 8's unusual conduct in not intervening while seeing the victim being dragged rendered his account unbelievable.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace proof. The absence of the appellants from the village coinciding with the victim's disappearance is at best an incomplete link in the chain. The chain remains incomplete because the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants were untraceable due to their involvement in the rape and murder of the victim."

Furthermore, the Bench highlighted that despite the collection of vaginal swabs, nail scrapings, and hair samples, the Investigating Officer failed to send them for forensic testing, thereby losing the only objective link that could have connected the appellants to the crime.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Court has following directions:

"The appellants are, thus, acquitted on benefit of the doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction dated February 28th, 2017, and order of sentence dated March 1st, 2017, is set aside. CRA 259 of 2017 is allowed. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith. The appellants, if on bail, such bail bonds shall be discharged. If not so, the appellants shall be set at liberty immediately, if not required in any other case, upon execution of bonds under Section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023."

Ratio

The 'last seen theory' only applies when the time gap between the accused and deceased being seen together and the discovery of the body is so small that the possibility of any other person committing the crime becomes impossible. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events that points exclusively to the guilt of the accused, and failure to provide medical or forensic corroboration when available creates a significant benefit of doubt.

Background

The victim, a young woman with a history of epilepsy and mental slowness, went missing on September 30, 2012. Her body was recovered on October 2, 2012, in a betel nut garden. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, who also went missing from the village on the same day, had intercepted, raped, and murdered her. The trial court had relied on the "last seen" testimony of neighbors and the appellants' arrest in Delhi two months later to award life imprisonment under Section 302 and 10 years for rape under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.

However, the High Court noted a 9-day delay in lodging the FIR and found that the estimated time of death provided in the post-mortem report (under Code of Criminal Procedure procedures) created a two-day gap from when the victim was last seen. Citing Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. The State Of Karnataka ( "2026 INSC 417": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 365), the Court reiterated that "last seen together" does not necessarily lead to an inference of guilt without further connectivity. The Court also applied principles from M.P. v. Balveer Singh and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa ( "(2002) 8 SCC 381": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 705) regarding tutored witnesses and material discrepancies, concluding that the legal requirements of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for discovering facts were not met as the location was already known to the police.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRA 259 of 2017
Case Title: Sunil Lakra & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manas Kumar Das, Ld. Advocate, Mr. Prodyut Kumar Roy, Mr. Aritra Kumar Thokdar
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anurag Sardar, Ld. Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2569