Rape-murder conviction upheld after Calcutta High Court relied on hostile witnesses’ prior statements and bicycle evidence

The appellant was convicted of raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The prosecution case was that the victim left home for her grandmother’s house on the evening of 1 February 2009, was last seen with the appellant, and was found dead the next morning in a mango orchard; a red ladies’ bicycle said to belong to the appellant was found at the scene.

Two witnesses, PWs 3 and 5, turned hostile at trial. The trial court convicted the appellant, and he appealed, challenging, among other matters, reliance on the hostile witnesses’ prior statements and the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.

Whether the trial court was wrong to discount the evidence concerning PWs 3 and 5’s prior accounts, including PW 5’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, after they resiled from those accounts at trial.

Whether the evidence, including the victim’s last being seen with the appellant, the recovery of the bicycle, and the medical evidence, established a complete chain of circumstances sufficient to sustain the convictions under Sections 376 and 302 IPC.

Whether the appellant was entitled to acquittal on parity because co-accused Royal Sheikh had been acquitted.

The Court applied Sections 376 and 302 IPC to the charges of rape and murder, and the circumstantial-evidence principles in Anees v. State Govt. of NCT and State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar: the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but an accused’s failure to explain facts within his special knowledge may be considered alongside the prosecution evidence and may reinforce an inference otherwise supported by the proved circumstances.

Relying on Ramesh v. State of Haryana, the Court held that a hostile witness’s testimony is not to be rejected wholesale; the court may accept portions found reliable after close scrutiny.

Under Vijaya Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence but may be used for corroboration or contradiction, and its reliability must be assessed in light of the circumstances and the evidence at trial.

The Court also relied on Sections 6, 106 and 145 of the Evidence Act in considering the spontaneous statements attributed to PWs 3 and 5, the appellant’s explanation, and the use of prior statements.

Section 357A CrPC was applied to direct victim compensation.

The Court found that PWs 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 consistently testified that PWs 3 and 5 had told them, before the police arrived, that the appellant had taken the victim away on a red ladies’ bicycle; it treated these accounts as supporting the witnesses’ earlier versions and as spontaneous statements relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.

It considered PW 5’s Section 164 statement, his general allegation that police had prompted him, and the Magistrate’s evidence, and concluded that his retraction was not credibly explained.

The Court further relied on the parents’ evidence that the victim had spoken with the appellant, the bicycle’s recovery at the scene and identification as the appellant’s, and medical evidence indicating death not long after the victim left home.

It held that the appellant’s failure to explain these circumstances under Section 313 CrPC reinforced the prosecution case, while emphasizing that the conviction rested on the circumstances it found proved.

The evidence against Royal Sheikh was materially different because he was not shown to have taken the victim on the bicycle.

It directed the State to pay Rs. 4,00,000 in compensation to the victim’s parents under Section 357A CrPC, subject to credit for any amount already paid, and directed recovery and remittance of the trial-court fine to the parents.