Supreme Court Acquits Two Men Convicted of Murder, Finds Every Circumstance in Chain Unreliable

A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran dismantled each link in the prosecution's circumstantial chain and ordered immediate release.

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men who had been convicted of murder by a trial court in West Bengal and whose conviction was confirmed by the High Court. Examining the last seen together theory, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries of alleged weapons one by one, a Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran found that not a single circumstance projected by the prosecution qualified as an incriminating link against the accused. The Court ordered their immediate release and, in an unusual further direction, asked the National Legal Services Authority to ensure that the third accused, who had not appealed and remained in jail is provided legal assistance to file an appeal before the Court within two months.

How the Case Reached the Court

The deceased, the son of the de-facto complainant, was found missing from the evening of 31 October 2012. His body turned up the next day in a field, head down with his legs sticking up from a ditch. Three companions with whom he had been seen drinking and roaming the previous day were rounded up and arrayed as accused.

The prosecution went to trial relying on the last seen together theory, extra-judicial confessions, recovery of alleged weapons and a motorbike, seizures from the place of occurrence, oral testimonies, and a serological report. Sixteen witnesses were examined and forty exhibits were marked before the trial court.

The trial court found a complete chain of circumstances establishing premeditated murder and convicted all three accused. The High Court affirmed the conviction. The first and second accused, Papan Sarkar @ Pranab and another, filed Criminal Appeals No. 2507 and 2508 of 2026 before the Supreme Court. The third accused did not appeal.

The Last Seen Together Theory: Time Gap Too Large

The prosecution's last seen together case rested primarily on PW1, the father of the deceased, and PW14. PW1 testified that the three accused came on a motorbike at around 4 PM on 30 October 2012 and his son accompanied them. PW14 testified to having seen the four persons together at around 5 PM.

PW11, another witness, claimed she saw the four men drinking in a field behind the BDO office that evening. The trial court and High Court had placed weight on this testimony, particularly because the post-mortem report detected alcohol in the stomach of the deceased. The Supreme Court, however, found PW11's evidence unreliable on a close reading of her cross-examination. She admitted the BDO office was open till evening and the locality was thickly populated. She could not identify the house where she worked, name her employer, or specify the locality. The Court said her testimony did not inspire enough confidence to constitute an incriminating circumstance.

PW13, another witness put forward to speak of the four persons visiting a hotel at 6 PM, turned hostile.

The post-mortem report placed the time of death as “24 hours not passed during examination after death of deceased.” The inquest was at 10.15 AM on 31 October 2012 and the autopsy at 2.10 PM the same day. Since PW14 last saw the deceased with the accused at 5 PM the previous day, death could have occurred at any point during the intervening night or early morning. The Court held that this time frame was too large to treat the last seen together circumstance as proximate to the death.

The Court referred to State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Another, (2007) 3 SCC 755, for the proposition that when the time gap between the accused and deceased being seen together and the death is large, intervening circumstances may snap the link, and no adverse inference can be drawn merely because the accused offers no explanation for when he parted company with the deceased.

Extra-Judicial Confession: Contradictory, Coerced, and Exculpatory

The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confessions said to have been made by A1 as spoken of by PW3, PW8, PW12, and PW14. The background was that villagers had detained A1 and A2 during a search after the body was found. PW8 testified that he assured A1 the mob would not assault him, upon which A1 confided that the three accused together murdered the deceased with A3 striking first and then insisting that A1 and A2 join in.

The problem was that PW8 stated in cross-examination that PW3 was present when A1 made this confession. PW3, however, did not speak of a confession at all. PW3 described an exculpatory statement by A1 that it was A2 and A3 who killed the deceased. PW12 and PW14 also spoke in line with PW3's version, not PW8's.

The Court found the exculpatory statement, where A1 absolved himself and accused the co-accused, unreliable by its very nature. It could not be used against the other accused because they had no opportunity to cross-examine A1. It could not incriminate A1 either, since three of the four witnesses described no confession at all.

The Court also found it doubtful whether PW12 and PW14 were even present when A1 spoke to PW8. More significantly, A1 and A2 were in the custody of a mob at the time. Medical examination after arrest showed injuries on their bodies, which the Court said cut at the root of the credibility of any statement made in those circumstances. The extra-judicial confession, already a weak form of evidence, was held to be entirely unproved.

Recoveries: Section 27 Requirements Not Met

The prosecution relied on the recovery of a stone weighing 1–1.5 kg and a glass piece from the place of occurrence, said to have been made on 2 November 2012 with the aid of A1 and A2. The seizure list described the recovery only as being “from the PO at the paddy land of Jogesh Roy” and noted the objects were recovered “on being shown and certified by accused 1 and 2.”

The Court held that the essential ingredient of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act , that the accused must have revealed knowledge of a concealment, leading the police to the specific location was absent. There was no recorded statement from either accused describing any concealment. The paddy field was an open space with free access. The seizure list did not specify the precise place of recovery. The Court also noted that the seizure was attributed jointly to both accused without indicating which of the two had revealed the concealment.

PW5, the Pradhan who witnessed both the inquest on 31 October 2012 and the recovery on 2 November 2012, could not distinguish which items were seized on which date. He also categorically stated that neither the stone nor the glass piece was produced in court and therefore could not be confronted to him as a witness. Critically, the alleged weapons were never shown to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem to elicit an opinion on whether they could have caused the injuries found on the body.

The Court found the recoveries of no evidentiary value and held they did not form a clinching incriminating circumstance.

Motorcycle Recovery and PW4: Further Gaps

The recovery of the deceased's motorcycle was similarly flawed. PW9, the house owner from whose premises the motorcycle was said to have been recovered, spoke of three persons parking the vehicle on 30 October 2012 but failed to identify the accused. The motorcycle was handed over to PW1 on challan but was never produced before the court. Its registration details were not placed on record to establish ownership. PW1 was not even questioned about the recovery and handover.

PW4, the aunt of A3, was examined to establish that A3 came to her house on the night of 30 October 2012 to park his bike after running out of petrol. In cross-examination, she stated that PW1 had been frequently visiting her after his son's death and threatening her with dire consequences if she did not depose falsely. In re-examination, the prosecution asked her about statements made to the police, a course the Court found impermissible. Even then, she first denied A3 had come to her house at night and then admitted it. The Court found no credence could be placed on such testimony.

The Court also observed that no motive was projected by the prosecution. While absence of motive is not fatal when the chain of circumstances is complete, the Court said that in this case, where the murder was brutal, the absence of any established motive added to the reasonable doubt already generated by the failure of every other circumstance.

Direction for the Third Accused

Having acquitted A1 and A2, the Court turned to A3, who had not filed an appeal and remained in jail. The Court directed the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority to contact the Member Secretary of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, who in turn shall, through the Secretary of the District or Taluk Legal Services Authority having jurisdiction over the prison where A3 is held, provide sufficient assistance to A3 and ensure that an appeal is filed before the Supreme Court. This is to be done within two months. The matter is posted on 20 July 2026 for compliance to be reported.

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed both criminal appeals. The convictions recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court were reversed. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith if not already released pursuant to the Court's earlier interim order, unless required in any other case. If already released, their bail bonds were directed to stand cancelled. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.