'PC confession invalid sans incriminating proof recover’

Kolkata: Acquitting a husband in an 11-year old murder case where he was given life sentence for allegedly killing his wife, Calcutta High Court observed that confession in police custody (PC) is inadmissible unless it is corroborated by recovery of incriminating materials pursuant to the statement made. The Division Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Gaurang Kanth was moved by the husband challenging his conviction by the trial court. The wife Budhi Murmu went missing on June 13, 2014. Her body was seen floating in Talpukur of Gaighata on June 15. Autopsy report revealed she was murdered by hard blunt trauma associated with strangulation.

Husband was arrested on July 14, 2014. On his showing, a boulder wrapped with a sky blue coloured shirt was recovered from the pond where her body was found. It was alleged that the husband killed her because she wanted to convert to Christianity. Allegations of torture were levelled against him. The court observed that recovery of the boulder and the shirt pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement was not proved. The place of body recovery was already in public domain prior to his arrest. He may have acquired knowledge of the place from other sources and not from the fact that he had committed the crime and thrown the body into the pond.

The court observed “A confession by an accused in police custody is inadmissible unless it receives corroboration by a subsequent event i.e. recovery of incriminating materials pursuant to the said statement”. The court observed that two eye-witnesses, who said they saw the husband strangle the wife with her saree but were threatened to silence, only told the police so after the husband was arrested. “..it is contrary to normal human conduct that after the body was recovered and identified by family members the witnesses would keep quiet for more than a month..” court observed. It was noted that the investigating officer was silent on how he learnt of the identity of these so-called eye witnesses. “Prosecution case with regard to motive is a divided house,” said the court observing that only two witnesses claimed the dispute was due to religious conversion issue. Others claimed alcoholism and other issues.