Calcutta HC Acquits Death Row Convict
The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed on Gopal Das in a case involving the murder of his wife, Lata Das, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra discharged Death Reference No. 06 of 2024 and acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The matter came before the High Court as a death reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri, by judgment dated December 9, 2024, convicted Gopal Das on three counts: cruelty under Section 498A IPC, murder under Section 302 IPC, and causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC. On December 10, 2024, the trial court sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A, imprisonment for the offence under Section 201, and death for the offence under Section 302.
According to the judgment, the case originated from a complaint lodged on April 21, 2019 by Bimal Das, the victim’s brother, before the Officer-in-Charge of Ashighar Out Post, P.S. Bhaktinagar, Jalpaiguri. The complaint stated that Lata Das, who had married Gopal Das around seven years earlier, had been subjected to physical and mental torture. It further alleged that on April 18, 2019, after being tortured, she went to her paternal home, that the accused followed her there, and that she went missing from 2:00 a.m. on April 19, 2019. The complaint also referred to a missing diary lodged by the accused on April 20, 2019 and alleged that he later admitted, in the presence of local persons, to having killed her by asphyxiation and disposed of the body in the septic tank of her paternal home. The victim’s body was recovered on April 21, 2019, followed by inquest and post-mortem proceedings.
The Bench recorded that by an earlier order dated January 2, 2025, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, had been directed to appoint an experienced senior advocate to represent the convict. Although time had later been sought to file an appeal against the conviction and sentence, the High Court found that no such appeal had been filed on behalf of the convict. The Bench nevertheless proceeded to reappreciate the entire evidence, noting that in a death reference it has the power not only to direct further inquiry or additional evidence under Section 367 CrPC, but also to confirm the sentence or annul the conviction.
Appearing for the accused, Mr. Sourav Ganguly, with Mr. Abhishek Sarkar, argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction; that the prosecution evidence was contradictory; that there was no complete chain of circumstances leading to the inevitable conclusion that the accused alone committed the crime; and that no motive had been established. Reliance was placed on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, Boby v. State of Kerala and Shibu Barman @ Kubal v. State of West Bengal.
For the State, learned APP Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, assisted by Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, argued that the legal test for circumstantial evidence stood satisfied. The State relied on Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda to contend that the chain was complete; that the “last seen” theory stood proved; that there was incriminating evidence concerning recovery of the body and articles used in the crime; and that the conduct of the accused under Section 8 of the Evidence Act pointed to his guilt. For these propositions, reliance was also placed on Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P., State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka and Machhi Singh.
The High Court held that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and emphasised that even a slight break in the chain would create reasonable doubt. It found that the trial court had relied heavily on the complaint of the de facto complainant and treated it as wholly true, even where the evidence on record did not support that version. The Bench pointed to the evidence of PW-14, the landlord, who stated that the accused and the victim had earlier lived as tenants and had left that rented premises four months before the victim’s death, thereby raising doubt over the prosecution story that the victim had come to her paternal home on April 18, 2019 and was followed there by the accused. The Court also noted that the prosecution made no attempt to establish where the couple resided after leaving the rented accommodation.
The Court found that the trial judge had misread the missing diary lodged by the accused. It also held that there was no admissible evidence showing that the accused had confessed before the police to murdering his wife or concealing her body in the septic tank. Referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Bench observed that any such admission before police, unless leading to discovery, would not be admissible, and in the present case there was no statement on record showing that recovery of the body flowed from information supplied by the accused. On the contrary, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-13, who were sweepers engaged to retrieve the body, stated that they had been called by police and told in advance that a body had to be taken out from the septic tank. Some of those witnesses also stated that the accused was not present when they arrived.
The Division Bench also identified material contradictions between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1 and PW-2, regarding when the victim went missing, the sequence in which her clothes were recovered, and when and how the accused allegedly confessed. It noted that PW-2’s version differed from PW-1 on whether the accused confessed before panchayat members or only after police intervention, and whether the recovery of the victim’s garments preceded or formed part of the confession narrative. The Court held that these inconsistencies struck at the root of the prosecution case, especially because the matter depended wholly on circumstantial evidence. It further found no evidence to support the allegation of prior cruelty or torture so as to sustain the charge under Section 498A IPC.
After examining the evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It observed that the trial judge had approached the case with a pre-determined mind and had effectively misconstrued facts in order to create an unbroken chain of circumstances that was not borne out by the record. Reiterating the five principles governing circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench held that those requirements were not satisfied in the case. It added that while the murder of a young woman was tragic, criminal conviction must rest on clear oral and material evidence, not moral suspicion.
The Court ultimately held that the charges under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC were not proved. It accordingly discharged the death reference, set aside the judgment of conviction dated December 9, 2024 and the sentence dated December 10, 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri, and acquitted Gopal Das of all charges. The Bench directed that he be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with any other case, and ordered immediate transmission of the judgment along with the lower court records to the trial court for information and compliance.
