“Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Take the Place of Proof”: Gauhati High Court Acquits Accused in Fratricide Case Due to Gaps in Circumstantial Evidence and Inadmissible Confession
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer set aside a conviction under Section 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita] and acquitted the appellant, who was convicted for allegedly murdering his own brother. The judgment, delivered on April 29, 2025, arose from an appeal preferred from jail against the judgment and order dated March 9, 2022, by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali, which had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000.
The Division Bench stated that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to hold the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench recorded, "We are of the considered opinion that the materials in this case would not be sufficient to come to a conclusion of guilt and that the same has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellant."
The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed fratricide on October 29, 2018, during a domestic dispute. An Ejahar was lodged on October 30, 2018, by Bhabananda Tanti (PW-2), the brother of both the deceased and the accused, stating that the accused had attacked the deceased with an axe at around 9 pm, causing his death. The case was registered as Biswanath P.S. Case No. 266/2018 under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. PW-1, the mother of the accused and the deceased, deposed that she learned about the incident from her grandson, Biraj Tanti (PW-3), who himself admitted he was not present at the time of the incident. PW-2, the informant, claimed he received information via phone and mentioned an extra-judicial confession by the appellant. However, he did not mention such confession in his statement under Section 161 CrPC.
PW-3, a minor son of the deceased, stated that he had stayed at his grandmother's house the previous evening and had only discovered the incident the following morning. In cross-examination, he said he had found the appellant brushing his teeth and the deceased lying inside the house.
PW-4, the Line Chowkidar, also spoke of an extra-judicial confession and stated the accused produced the axe. However, the Court noted that this confession was made after the police had arrived, which rendered it inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The axe itself was not proven to be the murder weapon as no bloodstains were found and no forensic examination was conducted.
PW-5, a cousin who lived in the adjacent part of the same company quarter, stated that he did not hear any quarrel the night before and did not know who committed the crime. PW-6 to PW-9 were mostly hearsay witnesses or official witnesses, including the Sarkari Gaonburah, who claimed to have been informed by the VDP Secretary around 7:30 am.
The I.O. (PW-11) admitted that no blood-stained clothes were seized, the axe was not sent for forensic examination, and that the General Diary Entry (GDE) was made at 8:30 am. The VDP Secretary, from whom the first information allegedly originated, was not examined.
The medical evidence by PW-10, the doctor, indicated sharp incised wounds consistent with an axe. However, the prosecution did not link the wounds definitively with the seized axe.
The defence raised the plea of alibi, stating that the accused was elsewhere and had come to the scene only to collect his bicycle. Though no witness was produced to support the alibi, the Court observed, "The failure of the plea of alibi would not necessarily lead to the success of the prosecution case which has to be independently proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt."
The Court recorded that there were inconsistencies in the evidence and failure to examine key witnesses. It stated, "The deposition recorded does not indicate that any procedure was undertaken to assess his (PW-3's) ability to answer the questions and the implications of his response." The Court found the statement that PW-3 found the accused brushing his teeth while the deceased lay dead inside the house to be "contradictory with the other evidence."
On the alleged extra-judicial confessions, the Bench noted, "It becomes apparent that extrajudicial confession, if any, was done in front of the police and therefore, hit by Section 25 r/w Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act." It further remarked that the alleged recovery of the axe by the accused was procedurally flawed, and "there is nothing to show that it was the axe which was found in the house of the appellant which was used."
The Court stressed that the failure of the prosecution to examine the VDP Secretary, absence of a proper seizure memo, and non-examination of witnesses who had first-hand knowledge of events further weakened the case. "There is no positive evidence that on the said evening the appellant and the deceased were there together when the occurrence had taken place."
The Court concluded that the conviction was based more on suspicion than legal proof. It recorded, "Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof." Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and directed the appellant's release.
"We set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali in Sessions Case No. 44/2019 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS] and acquit the appellant. The appellant is accordingly directed to be released forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case."
"For the valuable assistance rendered by Shri R. Sarma, the learned Amicus Curiae, we record our appreciation and he would be entitled to the prescribed fee."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Shri R. Sarma, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Ms. B. Bhuyan, Senior Advocate & Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam; Ms. R. Das, Advocate
Case Title: Arun Tanti vs. State of Assam
Neutral Citation: GAHC010135382022
Case Number: CRL.A(J)/72/2022
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer
[Read/Download order]
