Shibu Barman @ Kubal vs State of West Bengal, 2026
The Court reinforced the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the accused’s guilt.
Judgement Details
Court
Calcutta High Court
Date of Decision
9 February 2026
Judges
Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
On 17th February 2017, a woman’s body was found in a field with injuries around her neck.
-
Police registered a murder case against unknown persons and later arrested the husband, Shibu Barman, alleging he confessed to the crime.
-
The trial court convicted Barman based on circumstantial evidence: alleged domestic cruelty, “last seen together”, and an alleged confession.
-
Family members and children testified regarding domestic disputes and the circumstances of the woman’s disappearance.
-
Post-mortem confirmed death due to throttling and smothering.
Issues
-
Whether circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
-
Whether the “last seen together” theory alone could support a conviction?
-
Admissibility and reliability of the alleged extra-judicial confession?
-
Whether allegations of domestic cruelty could be treated as motive without corroborative evidence?
-
The impact of investigative lapses, including lack of forensic evidence, on the prosecution’s case?
Held
-
Conviction and sentence of Shibu Barman were set aside.
-
Appellant directed to be released, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC.
Analysis
-
The Court reinforced the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the accused’s guilt.
-
It reiterated that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence unless corroborated and properly recorded.
-
“Last seen together” is inherently weak evidence without supporting facts.
-
Lack of forensic support and investigative omissions critically undermined the prosecution’s case.
-
The judgment strengthens safeguards for accused individuals and highlights the need for robust, corroborated evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases of serious offenses like murder.