Supreme Court Acquits Man Where Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Is Incomplete

A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard a criminal appeal arising out of the Gauhati High Court's dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 88/2007 and challenged the conviction and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court in Kamrup for offences including murder under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The appellant had been convicted by the trial court under Sections 366(A)/302/201/34 IPC; the High Court set aside the 366(A) conviction but affirmed the convictions for murder and related offences.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Court and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasised that each link in circumstantial evidence must be proved and no gap may remain: The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "As we know, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. The chain must be complete and each fact forming part of the chain must be proved. ... All these circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence." The Court further noted that where one of the key circumstances was disbelieved by the High Court, "the chain of circumstantial evidence could not have been held to be complete" and therefore the appellant "deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and is entitled to an acquittal on this count."

Background The prosecution alleged that the deceased, a 16‑year‑old girl, went missing on 22.08.2003 after being seen with the appellant; her father lodged an FIR on 26.08.2003 and the body was recovered on 27.08.2003. The trial court convicted both accused; the High Court quashed conviction under Section 366(A) but sustained convictions under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and maintained sentences. Before the Supreme Court the appellant challenged the reliance on circumstantial evidence consisting principally of (i) the victim having been last seen with the appellant, (ii) alleged extra‑judicial confessions made before villagers and witnesses, and (iii) leading to the discovery of the body. The High Court had rejected the extra‑judicial confessions as inadmissible under Sections 25/26 of the Evidence Act but sustained conviction on the remaining two limbs.

The Supreme Court examined witness testimonies and investigative material and found material inconsistencies and deficiencies: contradictory accounts about where and when the body was seen and who led police to the recovery site; villagers' statements varying as to whether confessions occurred in police presence; absence of a magistrate at recovery; failure to send the seized blood-stained vest for FSL testing; non‑examination of material witnesses (notably the appellant’s mother and brother‑in‑law who had allegedly told the victim’s family the girl was safe and that marriage would be arranged); and a significant time gap between last‑seen testimony and recovery. The post‑mortem ruled death by manual strangulation but recorded no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. Applying settled law on circumstantial evidence and Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances distinctly and cumulatively so as to exclude all other hypotheses of innocence. Consequently, the criminal appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted and ordered released forthwith unless held in connection with other offences.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011; Citation: 2025 INSC 260 Case Title: Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ajim H. Laskar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): State counsel (name not indicated in the judgment)

Date of Judgment: February 24, 2025 Bench: Hon'ble Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan