The investigating agency ultimately filed a charge sheet on January 9, 2024, leading to the formal framing of charges on February 8, 2024, against the accused, Rishab Das. The trial, marked by the commencement of evidence from March 20, 2024, spanned over a year before the judgment was finally reserved on September 22, 2025.
II. The Prosecution’s Strategy: Weaving the Circumstantial Web
Lacking a direct, eyewitness account of the fatal blow, the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the strength of circumstantial evidence. In a trial of this nature, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again laid down the essential parameters for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence, most notably that the circumstances must be conclusively established and must form a chain so complete that there is no other hypothesis but the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution, in Sessions Case No. 14/2024, presented a roster of witnesses (referred to as PWs or Prosecution Witnesses) and documentary exhibits (Ext P.1 to Ext P.20) to piece together this chain. While the specifics of all testimonies remain within the detailed judgment text, the cornerstone of the prosecution’s proof is understood to have been built upon the following elements:
A. The Motive and Relationship Strain: Evidence was likely led through the testimony of relatives (perhaps PW-2, PW-3) or neighbours to establish the strained nature of the marital relationship and a plausible motive for the accused to cause harm to the deceased.
B. The Last Seen Theory: Crucially, evidence would have been adduced (by witnesses perhaps designated PW-4, PW-5) placing the deceased and the accused together in their residence at or immediately before the time of the incident on October 13, 2023. This is vital in shifting the burden onto the accused to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the deceased's fate, as mandated by Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
C. Medical and Scientific Correlation: The Post-Mortem Report, an indispensable piece of evidence (likely Exhibit P.X), would have been presented through the doctor’s testimony (likely PW-10 or PW-11). The report’s findings—specifically the cause of death (e.g., asphyxia, head injury, or internal haemorrhage) and the nature of the injuries—must convincingly align with the prosecution’s theory that the injuries were inflicted by the accused during the "physical assault" reported initially. Any material discrepancy here could have been fatal to the prosecution's case.
D. The Conduct of the Accused: The investigation and trial would have focused on the post-incident conduct of the accused, such as failure to seek timely medical help for his wife, attempts to conceal the death, or making false or inconsistent statements during the preliminary investigation. Such conduct, though not conclusive on its own, strengthens the circumstantial web.
III. The Defence’s Stand: A Plea of False Implication
The accused, Rishab Das, son of Late Satish Ch. Das, was represented by the Learned Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel, Mr. M. Rahman. The defence maintained the standard plea of 'not guilty,' asserting that the accused was falsely implicated and that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges of Murder and Criminal Conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defence's primary strategy, common in such cases of circumstantial evidence, would have been to demonstrate gaps in the prosecution's chain—to show that the evidence was either fabricated, inconsistent, or insufficient to exclusively point to the accused’s guilt. The Legal Aid Defence Counsel’s role, in providing robust representation to ensure a fair trial, upholds the constitutional mandate under Article 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India.
