Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of an individual sentenced to life imprisonment for the abduction and murder of a minor girl in Assam. The Court arrived at the finding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and credible chain of circumstantial evidence and, in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

The case originated from an incident on August 22, 2003, when a 16-year-old girl went missing in Assam. According to the first information report (FIR) lodged by her father on August 26, 2003, the appellant, along with a co-accused, allegedly kidnapped the victim and took her to an undisclosed location. The FIR further stated that the victim had taken Rs. 60,000 in cash from her house and was last seen in the company of the appellant.

The prosecution alleged that the accused had intentions of marrying the victim and initially kept her at Mukalmuwa. However, when family members failed to locate her, concerns arose. Subsequently, her body was discovered near a railway track in Pandu, and an investigation was launched. Based on the statements from various witnesses, the appellant was arrested and charged under Sections 366(A) (Procuration of a Minor Girl), 302 (Murder), and 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

During the trial, the prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, presenting three major points: (1) the appellant was last seen with the victim, (2) extra-judicial confessions made before witnesses, and (3) information provided by the accused leading to the discovery of the dead body.

The trial court convicted the appellant under all three sections and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 366(A) IPC, five years under Section 201 IPC, and life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The High Court of Guwahati later upheld the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC while setting aside the charge under Section 366(A) IPC.

The appellant challenged the High Court's judgement before the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution had failed to present conclusive evidence. The defense contended that the 'last-seen' theory was unreliable due to the time gap between when the victim was allegedly last seen and when her body was found. They also argued that no direct evidence linked the appellant to the crime and that the extra-judicial confessions were made in police custody, rendering them inadmissible under the Evidence Act.

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the evidence and observed that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. It stated the settled principle of law that for a conviction to be sustained on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be unbroken and establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court examined the ‘last-seen’ theory presented by the prosecution. It recorded that: "the gap between the alleged last-seen evidence and the recovery of the dead body is significant. Without any direct evidence linking the accused to the crime, conviction cannot be sustained solely on this theory."

Addressing the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions, the Court ruled that: "statements made in the presence of police officers or within a police station cannot be relied upon under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act." The High Court had already dismissed this piece of evidence, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the prosecution failed to present an unbroken chain of events linking the appellant to the crime.

The Court also examined the issue of the alleged discovery of the victim’s body at the appellant’s instance. It recorded inconsistencies in witness statements, stating: "The prosecution's version regarding the discovery of the dead body is not consistent, and no independent witness has confirmed that the accused led the police to the location of the body."

Furthermore, the Court observed that forensic evidence failed to support the prosecution’s claims. Although the police allegedly recovered a blood-stained vest, it was never sent for forensic examination, leading the Court to conclude that: "there is no scientific evidence to corroborate the prosecution’s allegations."

The Court also noted a significant omission in the prosecution’s case regarding the victim’s alleged possession of Rs. 60,000 at the time of her disappearance. It recorded: "Despite the claim that the victim carried a large sum of money, there was no investigation or recovery of the cash, raising questions about the accuracy of the prosecution’s narrative."

Additionally, the Court found it critical that the prosecution had not examined key witnesses. The victim’s family had alleged that the appellant’s mother and brother-in-law were aware of the victim’s whereabouts and had assured them that she would be safe. However, these individuals were never examined during the trial. The Court observed that: "the failure to examine material witnesses, who could have provided crucial insights into the events leading up to the victim’s disappearance, further weakens the prosecution’s case."

Based on the aforementioned findings, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and held: "Since the prosecution has failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal."

The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant unless he was required in connection with any other case. The judgment also directed that any pending penalties or fines imposed on the appellant in connection with this case be revoked.

Case Title: Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

[Read/Download order]