Introduction:

In the matter of Rasan @ Raisan Hansda @ Raison Hansda v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2019, the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Prasenjit Biswas overturned a conviction under Sections 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code that had resulted in a sentence of life imprisonment without remission and a fine of ₹10,000, with an additional two years’ simple imprisonment in default. The appeal was preferred by the convict-appellant against the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, arguing that the trial court had convicted him based solely on circumstantial evidence without satisfactorily establishing the requisite links in the evidentiary chain.

Arguments:

The appellant, represented by Advocate Ms. Suchismita Dutta, contended that the prosecution failed to prove three indispensable links necessary for a conviction grounded in circumstantial evidence—namely, the motive behind the crime, the “last seen” theory, and the recovery and connection of the weapon of assault. It was specifically emphasized that while a weapon was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant, it was not sent for forensic or chemical examination, thereby severing a vital evidentiary link needed to connect the accused with the actual act of murder. Ms. Dutta also questioned the credibility of prosecution witnesses, some of whom had turned hostile, including those who signed the seizure memo. The defense highlighted inconsistencies and inadequacies in the testimonies, particularly in relation to the victim being named in the initial statement before the Magistrate but not during courtroom deposition, which severely undermined the prosecution’s credibility.

On the other hand, State counsel Mr. Suman De argued that there was enough circumstantial evidence, including the statements of witnesses and the chain of events, that clearly pointed towards the guilt of the appellant. He submitted that the trial court had rightly appreciated the available evidence and that the conviction warranted no interference. He also contended that even in the absence of forensic linkage, the doctor’s opinion regarding the injuries being consistent with the weapon recovered should be considered credible evidence of guilt.

Judgement:

However, after reviewing the submissions, evidence on record, and the principles governing circumstantial evidence, the Calcutta High Court held that although the prosecution is not necessarily bound to produce direct evidence, the chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete and unbroken, leaving no room for any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The Bench underlined that in cases relying exclusively on circumstantial evidence, each link—motive, last seen together, and recovery of the weapon—must stand on firm footing to support a conviction. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the motive with certainty, as no concrete proof was offered regarding the relationship between the accused and the deceased that could provide a plausible reason for the alleged crime. On the “last seen” theory, the Court observed that while the accused may have been seen with the victim shortly before the death, this only establishes presence up to a point and cannot by itself complete the chain of guilt. Most critically, the Court held that the alleged recovery of the weapon was highly questionable. The investigation officer’s failure to conduct forensic or chemical examination of the weapon made the link between the accused and the crime highly speculative. The Bench further noted that the credibility of the recovery process was undermined due to key seizure witnesses turning hostile and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Additionally, the reliance on the doctor’s opinion without scientific corroboration from forensic experts was found to be insufficient. The Court reiterated that while failure to examine the weapon in all cases may not be fatal, in circumstantial cases where it is the only potential physical evidence connecting the accused to the crime, such failure becomes crucial. Given that the prosecution had not furnished conclusive or clinching evidence and several vital links in the chain remained missing or weak, the Bench found that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant. The High Court concluded that the accused could not be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted him of all charges, setting aside the life sentence. This judgment reiterates the principle that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, every link must be established clearly and any lapse—particularly concerning the recovery and examination of the weapon—can significantly affect the prosecution’s case. It also reflects judicial sensitivity towards protecting the rights of the accused by ensuring that convictions are not based on conjectures or incomplete narratives but on unassailable evidence that leads to a singular conclusion of guilt. The verdict thus stands as a precedent reaffirming that procedural thoroughness, scientific verification, and credibility of witnesses are indispensable in cases hinging on indirect evidence.