The Calcutta High Court upheld the life sentences of a married couple convicted for murdering a six-year-old girl and concealing her body. Both accused admitted the child was killed inside their room but each blamed the other. The court affirmed the trial court's conviction, applying principles of criminal procedure under which mutual incrimination between accused does not absolve either party when the death occurred within their exclusive custody and control.

This case engages two critical doctrines in criminal procedure that CLAT PG regularly tests.

First, the last-seen theory and exclusive custody principle: when a victim is last seen alive in the exclusive custody of the accused, and the accused cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for the death, the court may draw an adverse inference against them. This principle, rooted in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 111 BNSS/BSA), places a burden on the accused to explain circumstances within their special knowledge.

Second, the doctrine of common intention under Section 34 IPC (Section 3(5) BNS): when two persons act in furtherance of a common intention, each is as liable as if the act were done by them alone. Crucially, the fact that two co-accused blame each other does not break the chain of joint liability — it can actually reinforce the inference that both participated.

Third, the court reinforces that mutual finger-pointing between accused persons does not create reasonable doubt in favour of either. If the prosecution establishes that the crime occurred in circumstances exclusively under the accused's control, courts are entitled to reject the defence of mutual blame as self-serving.

For CLAT PG, the key skill is identifying which evidentiary principle governs — exclusive custody, common intention, or adverse inference — when a hypothetical involves co-accused blaming each other.