Six-year-old found strangled in a bag under neighbours’ cot; Calcutta High Court upholds couple’s murder convictions

The six-and-a-half-year-old victim was last seen entering the appellants’ room on the evening of 21 July 2011.

After her mother searched for her, the appellants denied that she had visited.

The next morning, police and neighbours found the child’s body concealed in a bag beneath the appellants’ cot.

The post-mortem evidence attributed her death to homicidal strangulation.

The Sessions Court convicted both appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence; they appealed

1. Whether the prosecution proved a complete chain of circumstances establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants jointly murdered the child

2. Whether the evidence established that the appellants concealed the child’s body with intent to screen the offence or its perpetrators from punishment, thereby proving an offence under Section 201/34 IPC

The Court applied Sections 302 and 34 IPC to the charge of murder committed with common intention, and Sections 201 and 34 IPC to the alleged concealment of evidence with intent to screen an offender from punishment

For circumstantial evidence, it applied the five principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring each circumstance to be fully established and the combined chain to exclude reasonable hypotheses other than guilt.

It also relied on Section 106 of the Evidence Act: once the prosecution establishes foundational facts, an accused’s failure to explain matters especially within their knowledge may provide an additional link, but cannot replace the prosecution’s initial burden

A statement under Section 164 CrPC is not, by itself, substantive evidence and may be used for corroboration or contradiction

The Court found that the child’s entry into the appellants’ room was established by the child witness and corroborating testimony; shortly afterwards, the mother found the door bolted and was falsely told the child had not visited.

The body was recovered the next morning from a bag beneath the appellants’ cot, and witnesses testified that appellant No. 1 produced the key and led to the bag.

The medical evidence established homicidal strangulation.

The Court treated the appellants’ failure to explain the child’s death and concealment in their room as an additional incriminating circumstance under Section 106, while relying on the proved circumstances as the foundation of its conclusion.

It further regarded the concealment of the body, false denials, diversion of the search, and attempted departure from the compound as evidence of an intent to screen the offence

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions and sentences.

Appellants on bail were directed to surrender within three weeks; those already in custody were to continue serving their sentences, with set-off under Section 428 CrPC for qualifying custody