{"id":5604,"date":"2026-03-14T12:22:04","date_gmt":"2026-03-14T06:52:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=5604"},"modified":"2026-03-14T12:02:01","modified_gmt":"2026-03-14T06:32:01","slug":"life-sentence-last-seen-theory-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/life-sentence-last-seen-theory-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Life Sentence To Man On Circumstantial Evidence: Calcutta High Court Relies On ‘Last-Seen’ Theory In Woman\u2019s Death Case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Calcutta High Court upheld the man\u2019s conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence sufficiently established responsibility for the woman\u2019s death\u2014but would the outcome have been same if the accused had been a woman? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Life Sentence To Man:\u00a0<\/em>In a recent decision,\u00a0the\u00a0Calcutta\u00a0High Court<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0bench of\u00a0Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay<\/strong>\u00a0upheld the conviction of Md. Abdul\u00a0Mottalab\u00a0Mia in a\u00a0murder case<\/strong>\u00a0from Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The Court was hearing an appeal against a trial court judgment that had sentenced the accused to\u00a0life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code<\/strong>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/strong>. The accused had already informed people about her condition earlier, which later became a point of suspicion<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Police registered an FIR <\/a>and filed a chargesheet. Witnesses said the accused and the woman had taken the rented room<\/strong> 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.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case mainly depended on circumstantial evidence and the \u201clast seen\u201d theory<\/strong>. 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.” <\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It also stated: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“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.”<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Police also recovered blood-stained bedding and cloth items<\/strong> from the room, and medical evidence suggested death due to strangulation<\/strong>. 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the High Court held that the chain of circumstances<\/strong> was enough to confirm guilt, stating: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“The evidence on record clearly indicates the participation of the appellant in the death of the victim” <\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

and “There is no other conclusion possible in the given facts and circumstances of the case.”<\/em><\/strong> The appeal was dismissed<\/strong>, and the life sentence remained in force. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, the case again raises the question that, when a case relies mainly on circumstantial evidence<\/strong> and the \u201clast seen\u201d theory<\/strong> without direct eyewitnesses, would the legal and social reaction be the same if the accused were a woman instead of a man?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong> <\/td>Purpose<\/strong> <\/td>How Applied in This Case<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
Section 302 IPC<\/strong> <\/td>Provides punishment for the offence of murder <\/td>The accused was convicted by the trial court for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was later upheld by the High Court <\/td><\/tr>
Section 313 CrPC<\/strong> <\/td>Allows the court to question the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him <\/td>The accused was examined under this provision during the trial and denied the allegations <\/td><\/tr>
Section 161 CrPC<\/strong> <\/td>Enables police to record statements of witnesses during investigation <\/td>Statements of several witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer during the investigation <\/td><\/tr>
Section 164 CrPC<\/strong> <\/td>Allows a Magistrate to record statements or confessions voluntarily made during investigation <\/td>The statement of one witness was recorded before a Magistrate under this provision <\/td><\/tr>
Section 294 CrPC<\/strong> <\/td>Allows admission of documents without formal proof if their authenticity is not disputed <\/td>The post-mortem report was accepted in evidence even though the doctor was not examined because its genuineness was not challenged <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Details <\/h3>\n\n\n\n