Suspicion howsoever high cannot take the place of proof: Calcutta High Court acquits man charged with murder under circumstantial evidence

The Calcutta High Court in a recent decision acquitted a man convicted by the trial court for murder stating that the evidence against the accused is hearsay and inadmissible in law.

Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Anand Kumar Mukherjee, presiding over the matter observed that, 

"If a prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is settled law that all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be proved and they should form a complete chain which is wholly inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence and unerringly points to the guilt of the appellant."

The accused in the matter, one Bistu Das was charged with murdering a man with a 'bhojali'. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents as well as material exhibits, based on which the trial judge convicted the accused. Das preferred the appeal against such order.  Adv. Mainak  appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no direct evidence that the appellant had committed the murder. Motive to commit the crime has also not been established, submitted Mr. Bakshi. 

Agreeing with the defense, the Court stated that the evidence on record is hearsay, since, none of the 'witnesses' had seen that the appellant commit the murder. "All of them stated in unison that they had heard that the appellant had committed murder. None of the witnesses, however, disclosed the source from where they gathered such knowledge," the Court observed. 

The trial judge reached his conclusion basis Section 6 of the Evidence Act which says that a fact which is not in issue but so connected with a fact in issue to form a part of the same transaction may be said to be relevant. The High Court observed that the court lost sight of a basic requirement of law that a fact can be said to be relevant under section 6 of the Evidence Act only if it is shown to be a part of the same transaction with a fact in issue.

"In the present case, all the witnesses have stated that they had heard that Bistu had committed the murder. However, none of them indicated the person or source from whom they derived such information. Failure to do so results in a snap in the link which connects the fact in issue i.e., murder and the proposed fact i.e., disclose of the identity of the murderer to the aforesaid witnesses as a part of the same transaction," the Court elaborated. 

Thus, the Court ordered release of the appellant from prison and concluded, 

Suspicion howsoever high cannot take the place of proof and such proof must be based on legally admissible evidence. In the present case, cogent and admissible evidence establishing the guilt of the appellant is lacking and the appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Bistu Das -Vs-State of West Bengal