In a chilling case involving allegations of ritualistic fraud, sexual assault, and double homicide, the Calcutta High Court examined whether a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence could sustain the charges of rape and murder. The proceedings required the Court to weigh inconsistencies in witness testimony, the evidentiary value of a disputed confession, and the constitutional threshold for awarding the death penalty. Read on to see how the Court resolved these complex issues.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from the murder of a woman and her teenage daughter in their home. The family had engaged a self-proclaimed spiritual healer to treat the daughter's burn scars through religious rituals, paying substantial sums. When the treatment failed and refunds were demanded, tensions escalated with threats from the healer. On the night of the ritual, the healer and an associate allegedly administered drugged substances to the victims, sending the husband away under a pretext. The woman and daughter were killed, one by sharp weapon injuries and the other by throttling, and their bodies were concealed. The bodies were discovered the next day, initially implicating the absent husband, who was later exonerated. The investigation focused on the healer based on witness accounts, motives, and recoveries. The trial court convicted the healer of rape, causing the disappearance of evidence, and murder, sentencing him to death for the latter, while acquitting the associate. The state filed for confirmation of the death sentence, and the convict appealed against the conviction and sentence before the High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the prosecution’s case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, failed to establish a complete chain pointing solely to his guilt. He pointed to contradictions regarding the inquest being conducted even before the incident was reported and the unexplained shift of allegations from the victims’ husband, initially arrested on the FIR, to himself. Witness accounts were inconsistent with their Section 161 CrPC statements on monetary dealings, rituals, and identification, while the alleged motive was based only on hearsay. The confessional statement, recorded four months after the incident, was claimed to be coerced and contrary to the prosecution’s version. Further, the recovered articles were accessible to all since the house remained under police control with no forensic link to him, and the medical as well as post-mortem reports did not establish rape or connect him with the crime.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that the appellant was last seen with the victims within close proximity of the incident, and his failure to explain the circumstances, as required under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, warranted an adverse inference. It was argued that the prosecution had sufficiently proved the charges through the evidence adduced at trial, and that the appellant faced similar allegations in another case registered at a different police station.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that "Considering the circumstances under which the dead bodies were recovered, physical condition of the dead bodies, the nature of injuries thereon, presence of gagging materials, the hands and legs being found in tied condition and also taking into account the opinion of the autopsy surgeon as to the cause of death of the victims, we find no doubts in arriving at a conclusion that the two victims were murdered."
Further, regarding the case against the appellant, the Court said, "The prosecution has come up with case that the appellant took money for curing the victim F2 in the name of performing Joggo. However he failed to keep his commitment. The money was allegedly demanded back. In order to terrorize the victims and to avoid the return of such money, the appellant committed murder of the two victims."
The Court observed, "The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have stated that the appellant committed rape upon F2 once and when he was trying to commit rape for the second time, F1 regained her senses. Such statement has not been corroborated by PW15 or the other witnesses. The medical evidence of PW28 also did not find any injury to support the case of the prosecution with regard to sexual assault upon the victim."
On the sentence and death penalty, the Court noted, "In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not in a position to arrive at a definite finding that any punishment other than the death penalty would be insufficient and the possibility of such punishment is absolutely foreclosed."
"Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinbefore and in consideration of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various pronouncements, we are minded to commute the death sentence awarded to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), into one of life imprisonment", added the Bench.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Calcutta High Court set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC while upholding the convictions under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The death sentence imposed under Section 302 was commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 40 years from the date of arrest. The death reference stood answered, and the appeal was partly allowed.
Case Title: The State Of West Bengal Vs. Sunil Das@ Hari Charan Das @ Hari Baba @ Swarup Roy @ Gurudev
Case No: Death Reference No. 06 Of 2023
Coram: Justice Debangsu Basak, Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
Advocate for Appellant: Sr. Adv. Kallol Mondal, Advs. Krishan Ray, Souvik Das, Anamitra Banerjee, Akbar Laskar,
Advocate for Respondent: P.P. Debasish Roy, Sr. Govt. Adv. Amita Gaur, Adv. Rajnandini Das
