The appellant, Md. Bani AlamMazid @ Dhan, sought to overturn his conviction under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder, which had been upheld by the Gauhati High Court. The Supreme Court meticulously examines the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, specifically the “last seen together” theory and evidence “leading to discovery,” while also considering the High Court’s dismissal of “extra-judicial confessions.” Ultimately, the court finds the prosecution’s case to be insufficient in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant’s acquittal and release.
(A) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/201/34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Extra-judicial confessions – Circumstances of last seen together – Disclosure statement – Leading to discovery – Three circumstances against the appellant by prosecution that appellant and the victim were last seen together; extra- judicial confession made by the appellant before PWs.; and the fact of recovery of the dead body following the confessional statements of the appellant made to PWs. – High Court discarded the circumstance of extra- judicial confessions made by the appellant before PWs on the ground that those confessions were made in the presence of the police and thus would be hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act – High Court had disbelieved one of the three circumstances put forth by the prosecution as part of the chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant – Held that if this be the position, then it could not be said that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and that no other inference except the guilt of the accused was possible there from – As the chain got broken, appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt as it could not be said that the circumstances put together established the guilt of the accused (appellant) beyond all reasonable doubt – However, the High Court convicted the appellant on the strength of the remaining two pieces of circumstantial evidence holding that those two complete the chain wherefrom no other inference except the guilt of the appellant was possible – High Court clearly fell in error in coming to such a conclusion – When one of the three circumstances was disbelieved and discarded by the High Court, then the chain of circumstantial evidence could not have been held to be complete and proved and on that basis to hold the accused guilty of the offence – Each and every circumstance forming the chain of circumstantial evidence has to be proved.
(Para 23 to 25)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/201/34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Circumstances of last seen together – Held there are glaring discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who allegedly had seen the deceased last alive in the company of the appellant on 22.08.2003 – Dead body was recovered 5 days thereafter on 27.08.2003 that too after lodging of FIR on 26.08.2003 – There was considerable time gap between the time the appellant and the deceased were last seen together alive and recovery of the dead body – Therefore, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had committed the offence.
(Para 29 and 33)
(C) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/201/34 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Disclosure statement – Leading to discovery – Except PW-6 none of the other PWs have stated that they were present at the place from where the dead body was recovered by the police on being shown by the accused persons – They had only seen the dead body in the police station – But even the version of PW-6 is difficult to accept inasmuch as according to him it was the other accused Jahangir who led him and members of the public along with the police to a place near the Pandu railway track from where the dead body was recovered, the appellant being in jail at that time – Such statements of PW-6 have to be taken with a pinch of salt as he tied himself up in knots by stating that it was Jahangir who had confessed to killing ‘M’ – PW-13, the investigating officer, however, stated that the two accused persons after confessing before him that they had killed ‘M’ led the police to the place where the dead body was kept concealed near the Pandu railway track – Held that after analysing the evidence on record, it is difficult to accept the prosecution case that the dead body of ‘M’ was recovered from the concealed place near the Pandu railway track at the instance of the appellant – Therefore, Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot come to the aid of the prosecution.
(Para 42 to 44)
(D) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302/201/34 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Disclosure statement – Leading to discovery – PW-13, the investigating officer, stated that though he had seized the vest with blood stains, he did not send the same to the FSL for examination – Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that firstly the blood stains on the vest are human blood and secondly those matches the blood of the deceased – In his cross-examination, PW-13 also stated that he did not make any prayer before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate to get the confessional statements of the accused recorded – Held that viewed in the above context, the circumstance of leading to discovery cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as against the appellant – If that be the position, not only the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, all the circumstances put forth by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant cannot be accepted as having been proved as valid pieces of evidence – Therefore, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and is entitled to an acquittal on this count.
(Para 45 and 46)
Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan V. State Of Assam
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 260: (DoJ 24-02-2025)
