Gauhati High Court: ‘Incomplete Chain of Circumstances and Section 106 Burden Not Attracted’; Acquits Appellant in Murder Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, delivered a detailed judgment in a criminal appeal, resulting in the acquittal of an appellant convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench stated that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby setting aside the conviction and life sentence.
The case arose from an FIR lodged on June 26, 2006, by Musstt. Salema Bibi at Bilasipara Police Station, Assam. The FIR alleged that on June 18, 2006, the appellant, Hazrat Ali @ Hazarat Ali, had called the informant’s husband away from home under the pretext of returning borrowed money. The deceased never returned home and was later found dead near the bank of the Brahmaputra River. The FIR further stated that on June 19, 2006, the appellant visited the complainant’s house and admitted to killing her husband before fleeing the scene. The complainant cited her search efforts as the reason for the delay in filing the FIR.
Upon investigation, Bilasipara Police registered the case as Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 164/2006 under Sections 143, 302, and 201 IPC. The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared a rough sketch map, and arranged a post-mortem examination of the deceased. The appellant was arrested and charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. His co-accused, Sahjahan Ali, was declared an absconder, leading to separate trials.
The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the complainant, neighbours, and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. The appellant pleaded not guilty and declined to present any defense evidence.
The High Court examined the evidence presented and found significant gaps in the case against the appellant. The bench noted that the prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last-seen theory, without sufficient corroboration.
The testimony of PW-7, the complainant, was central to the prosecution’s case. She claimed that the appellant took her husband away to return money, after which he never returned. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that she did not inform her neighbours about this occurrence. She also acknowledged that the police station was only 15-20 minutes from her residence but could not provide a convincing reason for the seven-day delay in lodging the FIR.
The post-mortem report, presented by PW-8, established the cause of death as asphyxia due to drowning but did not confirm whether the death was homicidal. The court questioned the trial court’s conclusion that the death was homicidal, as no forensic evidence conclusively supported this claim. The prosecution also failed to establish that the deceased was last seen with the appellant under circumstances that made it likely he had committed the crime.
PW-4, the brother of the deceased, testified that the body was recovered 15 days after the alleged incident. The court noted that this time gap was too significant to draw a direct inference of guilt based on the last-seen theory. Furthermore, multiple witnesses, including PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5, admitted to having no personal knowledge of how the deceased died, and their testimonies did not establish any substantive link between the appellant and the crime.
The court cited multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (2019) and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014), to state the principle that the last-seen theory alone is insufficient to establish guilt. The judgment stated: “An adverse inference can be drawn against the accused only and only if the incriminating materials stand fully established, and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the said.”
The High Court held that an accused cannot be convicted based on weak circumstantial evidence. It was observed that the prosecution failed to prove a continuous chain of circumstances linking the appellant to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the trial court's reliance on the last-seen theory and the failure of the accused to provide an explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The High Court stated that the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The judgment stated: “In our considered opinion, the circumstances of this case and the chain of evidence adduced by the prosecution side are not so complete as not to leave any reasonable doubt or conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant. The evidence adduced by the prosecution side is not of such nature that in all human probability, it may be concluded that the act must have been done by the appellant only. The other possibilities may not be ruled out in the present case”.
Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant unless he was required in connection with any other case. The trial court records were directed to be returned along with a copy of the judgment.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent (State of Assam): Ms. A. Begum, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Hazrat Ali @ Hazarat Ali v. State of Assam
Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:2716-DB
Case Number: CRL. APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2023
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita
[Read/Download order]
