The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that a conviction for murder cannot rest on uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions, even when multiple witnesses claim to have heard them. The judgment underscores the critical importance of investigative consistency and the prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt without relying on inherently unreliable oral assertions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the murder of a woman in Cooch Behar, West Bengal, whose body was discovered in the bed of a river on 29.04.2015. The de facto complainant, Tumpa Biswas, alleged that her mother was murdered by her husband, Ujjal Mallik (Respondent No.1), and his associate, Respondent No.2, due to an alleged illicit relationship and threats made by Respondent No.1. The prosecution charged both respondents under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Key Facts
- The victim was last seen alive on the evening of 10.03.2015, when she left to watch television at her sister-in-law’s house.
- Her husband reported her missing on the same night and lodged a missing diary with the police.
- The dead body was discovered on 29.04.2015, nearly five weeks after her disappearance.
- The postmortem report (Exhibit P-8) concluded death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation with a sari, and was homicidal in nature.
- The prosecution claimed the respondents confessed to the crime in the presence of multiple witnesses after the body was found.
- The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and tendered documentary evidence including the inquest report (Exhibit-2), postmortem report (Exhibit-8), photographs (Material Exhibit-I), and seizure lists (Exhibit-4, 4/1).
- The complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was marked as Exhibit-3; similar statements by P.W.2 and P.W.3 were marked as Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-6.
Procedural History
- 10.03.2015: Victim last seen alive.
- 29.04.2015: Dead body discovered in river bed.
- 30.04.2015: First Information Report (FIR No. 433/2015) registered at Kotwali Police Station.
- 06.05.2015: Seizure list prepared and signed by witnesses.
- 19.03.2016: Charges framed under Sections 302/201/34 IPC.
- 11.02.2020: Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar, acquitted both respondents for lack of credible evidence.
- 23.03.2026: Calcutta High Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant (Tumpa Biswas): The prosecution, through amicus curiae, argued that the extra-judicial confessions made by the respondents before multiple witnesses - P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, and P.W.6 - were sufficient to establish guilt, especially when coupled with the postmortem findings and the suspicious conduct of the respondents.
For the Respondents: No counsel appeared for the respondents. The defense was limited to their denial under Section 313 CrPC, where both claimed innocence and rejected all allegations.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reversal of the acquittal, conviction of both respondents under Sections 302/201/34 IPC, and imposition of appropriate punishment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether extra-judicial confessions, made before multiple witnesses but uncorroborated by the Investigating Officer or contemporaneous investigation records, can sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of any eyewitness or circumstantial chain linking the accused to the crime.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The amicus curiae contended that the confessions made by the respondents before P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, and P.W.6 were voluntary, credible, and consistent with the postmortem findings. He relied on State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. to argue that extra-judicial confessions, if made before impartial persons and not retracted, can form the basis of conviction if corroborated by other material evidence. He emphasized that the respondents’ absence from the neighbor’s house on the night of the incident, their presence near the river bed at dawn, and the timing of the body’s discovery created a strong circumstantial link.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not contest the acquittal. The Investigating Officer (P.W.9) categorically denied in cross-examination that any of the prosecution witnesses had reported the extra-judicial confessions to him during the investigation. This absence of corroboration from the official record was fatal to the prosecution’s case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the testimonies and the investigation record. It noted that while five prosecution witnesses claimed to have heard extra-judicial confessions, their accounts were inconsistent. P.W.1 alleged only Respondent No.1 confessed; P.W.2 claimed it was Respondent No.2; P.W.3 said Respondent No.1 confessed; and P.W.5 and P.W.6 claimed both confessed. These contradictions undermined the reliability of the confessions.
"We did not find that in such 164 statement any of the P.Ws. 1, 2 or 3 made any claim that any of the respondents made the extra judicial confessions to them."
The Court emphasized that statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC are solemn declarations made before a Magistrate and are presumed to be more reliable than oral testimony given at trial. The fact that none of the witnesses mentioned the confessions in their Section 164 statements was a critical flaw.
Further, the Investigating Officer (P.W.9) explicitly denied that any of the witnesses had informed him of the confessions during the investigation. The Court held that the absence of contemporaneous documentation or investigation-based corroboration rendered the confessions suspect and inadmissible as a sole basis for conviction.
The Court also rejected the "last seen together" theory, noting no witness testified that the respondents were last seen with the victim. No forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, linked the respondents to the crime scene. The prosecution failed to establish a chain of circumstances leading to an irrefutable conclusion of guilt.
"The prosecution was unable to establish a chain of circumstances leading to irrefutable conclusion as to the guilt of any of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the incident of murder."
The Court concluded that the Trial Judge correctly applied the principle that a conviction must rest on evidence that is cogent, consistent, and beyond reasonable doubt. The presence of doubt, particularly regarding the origin and reliability of the confessions, mandated acquittal.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Calcutta High Court upheld the acquittal of both respondents, Ujjal Mallik and the other accused, on all charges under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment and trial records be sent to the Sessions Court, Cooch Behar, for record closure.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Extra-Judicial Confessions Require Independent Corroboration
- Practitioners must not rely solely on oral confessions made before lay witnesses.
- A confession must be supported by contemporaneous investigation records, statements under Section 164 CrPC, or physical evidence.
- If the Investigating Officer denies knowledge of the confession during investigation, the confession is likely to be rejected.
Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony Are Fatal
- Contradictory accounts of who confessed, when, and to whom create reasonable doubt.
- Courts will not reconcile inconsistencies; they will treat them as indicators of fabrication.
- Prosecutors must ensure witness statements are consistent across all stages: FIR, Section 164, trial testimony, and investigation records.
Absence of Circumstantial Chain Dooms Prosecution
- Without eyewitnesses, forensic links, or a clear timeline placing the accused with the victim, the prosecution cannot rely on suspicion.
- The "last seen together" doctrine requires proof that the accused was the last person seen with the victim under suspicious circumstances.
- In murder cases, the burden remains on the prosecution to eliminate all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
