High Court acquits man convicted of parricide in 2012, cites evidence gap

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has set aside the conviction of a Purulia man sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of his parents in 2012, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A Division Bench of Justice Apurba Sinha Ray and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj delivered the ruling while allowing the appeal of Rabi Murmu, who had been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Purulia, under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC in 2013.

The case stemmed from the deaths of Murmu’s mother, Nilmoni Murmu, found in the family’s house, and his father, Sukram Murmu, whose body was discovered in a nearby jungle. Police claimed that Murmu confessed to killing them with an axe and a small knife (‘kait’), and led officers to the bodies and alleged weapons.

The High Court, however, noted several critical lapses. It found that no formal disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act had been recorded before the recoveries, rendering the alleged discovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes legally weak. The seized items were not sent for forensic confirmation of human blood, nor were they produced in court or shown to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. The doctor had, in fact, opined that the injuries on the father could not have been caused by a ‘kait’.

The Bench further held that the extra-judicial confessions attributed to Murmu were unreliable, as they were made in the presence of police officers, raising doubts about their voluntariness. Confessions to police are inadmissible under law, the court stressed, except for limited disclosures leading to discovery.

Referring to established Supreme Court precedents on circumstantial evidence, the judges reiterated that each link in the chain must be conclusively proven and must point only to the accused’s guilt. In Murmu’s case, the court said, the prosecution failed to prove motive, did not remove contradictions in timing of arrest and recovery and left “gaping holes” in the evidentiary chain.

Granting the benefit of doubt, the court acquitted Murmu and directed his immediate release, if not required in any other case.