Supreme Court acquits accused in a case of circumstantial evidence due to incomplete chain of circumstances: Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs. State of Assam (2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 24, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 260

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

In cases lacking direct evidence, can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is incomplete? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the admissibility and weight of circumstantial evidence. The Court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case originated from a first information report (FIR) lodged on August 26, 2003, by PW-1, Amzad Ali, who alleged that his minor daughter, Marjina Begum (16 years), was kidnapped on August 22, 2003, by the appellant, Md. Bani Alam Mazid, along with Mohd. Jahangir Ali. The FIR also mentioned that Marjina had taken Rs. 60,000 in cash from her house.

Following the registration of the FIR, the police arrested the appellant and the co-accused, Jahangir Ali. During the investigation, the dead body of Marjina Begum was discovered. Subsequently, a chargesheet was submitted against both accused persons under Sections 366(A), 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The legal framework relevant to this case includes the following sections:

• Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the kidnapping or inducing a minor for illicit intercourse.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872: States that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused.
• Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Specifies that a confession made by a person in police custody is not admissible unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
• Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Provides that when any fact is discovered as a consequence of information received from an accused in police custody, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.

Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, allowing certain statements made by a person in police custody to be admitted as evidence if they lead to the discovery of a relevant fact.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant:

• The case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the High Court erred in upholding the conviction based on the circumstances of “last seen together” and “leading to discovery.”
• The extra-judicial confessions were discarded by the High Court because they were made in the presence of the police, rendering them inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• PW-2’s testimony indicated that the deceased went with the appellant willingly, negating any element of coercion or force.
• There was no clear motive for the appellant to murder the deceased, especially given their romantic relationship and reported plans for marriage.
• The alleged cash amount of Rs. 60,000 was never recovered, and the police did not conduct a proper investigation into this aspect.
• The “leading to discovery” evidence is an extension of the inadmissible extra-judicial confessions and should not be considered valid.

Arguments by the State:

• The trial court and High Court correctly convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented.
• The deceased was in the appellant’s custody from the time she left with him until her death, and the appellant failed to explain what happened during this period.
• Although the extra-judicial confessions are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the statement leading to the discovery of the dead body is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
• The time gap between when the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the recovery of the dead body is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant based on circumstantial evidence, specifically the circumstances of “last seen together” and “leading to discovery,” when one of the key circumstances (extra-judicial confession) was disbelieved and discarded?
2. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, considering the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the lack of recovery of the alleged cash amount?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On Circumstantial Evidence:

• Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 147: This Court reiterated the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of circumstances must be complete and incompatible with the innocence of the accused.

On Last Seen Together:

• State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755: This Court held that the circumstance of last seen together is relevant when the time gap between the accused and the deceased being last seen together and the discovery of the crime is small.
• Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715: This Court held that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself lead to the inference that it was the accused who had committed the crime.
• Anjan Kumar Sarma Vs. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC 359: This Court held that in a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain.

On Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872:

• Pulukuri Kottaya Vs. King-Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67: The Privy Council clarified that the discovery of fact under Section 27 arises from the information given by the accused, exhibiting their knowledge of its existence at a particular place.
• Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 1 SCC 253: This Court referred to the observations made by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya (supra) and culled out the principles.
• Asar Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 12 SCC 253: This Court held that the ‘fact’ in Section 27 need not be self-probatory and includes the discovery of the object, the place from which it is discovered, and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.

On Motive:

• Anwar Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166: This Court observed that in a case where direct evidence is available, motive loses its importance, but the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence weighs in favor of the accused.
• Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626: This Court observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances.
• Nandu Singh Vs. State of M.P., 2022 SCC Online SC 1454: This Court summed up the legal position that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance, and the complete absence of motive weighs in favor of the accused.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court followed this precedent to reiterate the principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of circumstances must be complete and incompatible with the innocence of the accused.
• State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran [CITATION]: The Court followed this precedent to emphasize that the circumstance of last seen together is relevant only when the time gap between the accused and the deceased being last seen together and the discovery of the crime is small.
• Pulukuri Kottaya Vs. King-Emperor [CITATION]: The Court referred to this precedent to clarify that the discovery of fact under Section 27 arises from the information given by the accused, exhibiting their knowledge of its existence at a particular place.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence. The rejection of the extra-judicial confession as admissible evidence significantly weakened the prosecution’s case. Additionally, the inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses and the absence of a clear motive further contributed to the Court’s decision.

Sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:

“Fact:Law” ratio analysis:

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction based on circumstantial evidence?

Circumstantial Evidence → Extra-Judicial Confession Discarded → Chain of Circumstances Incomplete → Benefit of Doubt to Appellant → High Court Not Justified

Issue 2: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Insufficient Evidence → Inconsistent Testimonies → Lack of Recovery of Cash → Guilt Not Established → Appellant Acquitted

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points unequivocally to the guilt of the accused.
• Extra-judicial confessions made in police custody are generally inadmissible as evidence, and any evidence derived from such confessions may also be deemed inadmissible.
• The absence of a clear motive can be a significant factor in favor of the accused, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that leads unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. The judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring that each piece of evidence is admissible and consistent with the others, and that any missing links or inconsistencies can be fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction of the appellant. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and consistent investigation and the need for the prosecution to prove each element of the case beyond all reasonable doubt.