No Explanation for Death Inside House: Calcutta HC Upholds Conviction of Family Members

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of four accused persons for the brutal murder of a man inside his own home, holding that a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, coupled with the doctrine under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, clearly established their guilt.

The Court ruled that where an offence occurs within the privacy of a home and the accused persons are the only ones present, the burden shifts on them to explain the circumstances of the crime, failing which an adverse inference can be drawn.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court upheld the judgment of the trial court sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment, holding that the prosecution had successfully established motive, last seen circumstances, recovery of weapon, and conduct of the accused, forming a complete chain of circumstances pointing to their guilt.

The prosecution case arose from a complaint lodged on 16.12.2011, after the victim was found dead in the bathroom of his house with his throat slit.

The complainant, a relative of the deceased, expressed suspicion against the victim’s son and other family members.

The investigation led to the arrest of four accused persons, including the son, daughter-in-law, daughter, and son-in-law of the deceased.

During trial, the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. Witnesses deposed regarding a longstanding dispute between the accused and the deceased over money derived from sale of land and other financial assets.

Evidence was led to show that the accused persons had been pressuring the victim to part with such funds, which he had instead intended to distribute among his grandchildren.

Several neighbours testified that the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased were seen entering the victim’s house on the night of the incident. It was also established that the son and daughter-in-law were residing with the deceased in the same house.

This evidence formed the basis of the “last seen” circumstance, which the Court held was particularly significant since the accused were not merely last seen with the deceased but were present within the same premises.

The medical evidence confirmed that the victim’s death was homicidal in nature, caused by a deep incised wound on the neck inflicted by a sharp cutting weapon.

The Court noted that such an injury could not have been self-inflicted, thereby rejecting the defence plea of suicide.

A key piece of evidence was the recovery of the murder weapon, a “boti”, from a pond, based on information provided by the accused. The Court held that the recovery satisfied the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the accused had led to the discovery of the weapon and identified it as the one used in the crime.

This, along with medical evidence linking the weapon to the injuries, formed an important link in the chain of circumstances.

The Court also relied on the conduct of the accused, particularly the son of the deceased, who initially attempted to portray the death as a case of suicide. The Court held that such conduct was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and indicated suppression of material facts.

Addressing the argument regarding inconsistencies in the timing of the FIR and inquest, the Court held that there was no material discrepancy affecting the prosecution case. It noted that the FIR was promptly lodged and forwarded to the Magistrate, and the inquest proceedings were conducted without undue delay.

The High Court emphasised that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to an irresistible conclusion of guilt.

In the present case, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully proved motive, last seen circumstances, recovery of weapon, conduct of the accused, and exclusive presence of the accused with the victim at the time of the incident.

Significantly, the Court invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, observing that the facts relating to what transpired inside the house were especially within the knowledge of the accused persons.

Since the accused failed to offer any explanation or evidence regarding the circumstances leading to the death of the victim, the Court held that an adverse inference could be drawn against them.

The Court concluded that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. It further held that the murder was premeditated and driven by financial motives, and that all accused had acted with common intention.

Finding no infirmity in the trial court’s judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants.

Case Title: Tapas Das Kabiraj & Ors. v. State of West Bengal

Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

Date of Judgment: 16.03.2026