The Calcutta High Court upheld the man’s conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence sufficiently established responsibility for the woman’s death—but would the outcome have been same if the accused had been a woman?
Life Sentence To Man: In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay upheld the conviction of Md. Abdul Mottalab Mia in a murder case from Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The Court was hearing an appeal against a trial court judgment that had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the woman was living with the accused in a rented room at Jharna Busty in Jaigaon after she had left her husband. Later, her son received a call from the accused saying that his mother was unwell.
When relatives and locals reached the house, they found the room locked from outside and a foul smell coming from inside. After police opened the door, the woman was found dead on the bed with blood coming from her nose and mouth. The accused had already informed people about her condition earlier, which later became a point of suspicion.
Police registered an FIR and filed a chargesheet. Witnesses said the accused and the woman had taken the rented room only a few days before the incident. The accused worked as a carpenter and did not go to work for the next couple of days, which some people treated as suspicious. However, it was argued that absence from work or panic after a tragic incident cannot by itself prove guilt in a murder case.
The case mainly depended on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen” theory. Witnesses said the accused and the woman were last seen entering the room together, and later the accused was seen outside alone. The Court observed: “The victim was thus under the exclusive custody of the appellant.”
It also stated:
“The lie given out by the accused just after the commission of the crime is a relevant fact which calls for an adverse inference against him.”
Police also recovered blood-stained bedding and cloth items from the room, and medical evidence suggested death due to strangulation. Since the accused had been living with the victim, the Court said the circumstances were within his knowledge, and he should have explained what happened.
Finally, the High Court held that the chain of circumstances was enough to confirm guilt, stating:
“The evidence on record clearly indicates the participation of the appellant in the death of the victim”
and “There is no other conclusion possible in the given facts and circumstances of the case.” The appeal was dismissed, and the life sentence remained in force.
However, the case again raises the question that, when a case relies mainly on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen” theory without direct eyewitnesses, would the legal and social reaction be the same if the accused were a woman instead of a man?
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 302 IPC | Provides punishment for the offence of murder | The accused was convicted by the trial court for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was later upheld by the High Court |
| Section 313 CrPC | Allows the court to question the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him | The accused was examined under this provision during the trial and denied the allegations |
| Section 161 CrPC | Enables police to record statements of witnesses during investigation | Statements of several witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer during the investigation |
| Section 164 CrPC | Allows a Magistrate to record statements or confessions voluntarily made during investigation | The statement of one witness was recorded before a Magistrate under this provision |
| Section 294 CrPC | Allows admission of documents without formal proof if their authenticity is not disputed | The post-mortem report was accepted in evidence even though the doctor was not examined because its genuineness was not challenged |
Case Details
- Case Title: Md. Abdul Mottalab Mia @ Abdul Mottalab vs The State of West Bengal
- Court: High Court at Calcutta
- Case Number: CRA 614 of 2014
- Bench: Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
- FIR Details: Jaigaon Police Station FIR No. 364 of 2010 dated 3 November 2010
- Dates:
- Judgment Pronounced On: 12 March 2026
- Last Hearing On: 10 March 2026
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Mrs. Ghazala Firdaus, Sk. Saidullah, and Mr. Mithun Mondal, Md. Arsalan
- For State: Mr. Debasish Roy (Public Prosecutor), Ms. Faria Hussain, Mr. Anand Keshari
Key Takeaways
- The conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen together” theory, as there was no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident.
- Inconsistent statements made by the accused to different people after the incident were treated by the court as suspicious conduct and used to draw adverse inference.
- Since the incident happened inside a rented room where the accused and the woman were living together, the court placed responsibility on the accused to explain what happened inside that space.
- The prosecution relied on recovery of items like blood-stained bedding and cloth along with medical opinion of strangulation to support the chain of circumstances.
- After examining the sequence of circumstances, the court concluded that the chain of evidence pointed towards the accused and therefore upheld the life imprisonment sentence.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
