2025 Supreme(SC) 389

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011
Decided on : 24-02-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person – Chain must be complete and each fact forming part of chain must be proved.
(2) Last-seen theory – In all cases, it cannot be said that evidence of last seen together has to be rejected merely because there is a time gap between accused and deceased last seen together and crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration.
(3) Disclosure statement – Word ‘fact’ contemplated in Section 27 of Evidence Act is not limited to ‘actual physical material object.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366(A)/302/201/34 – Kidnapping, murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person – Chain must be complete and each fact forming part of chain must be proved – When one of three circumstances was disbelieved and discarded by High Court, then chain of circumstantial evidence could not have been held to be complete and proved and on that basis to hold accused guilty of offence – Each and every circumstance forming chain of circumstantial evidence has to be proved – Circumstance of leading to discovery is intrinsically connected with circumstance of extra-judicial confessions made by appellant and other co-accused before PWs – Inconsistencies of prosecution witnesses on circumstance of leading to discovery continued – Circumstance of leading to discovery cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as against appellant – Appellant deserves to be given benefit of doubt and is entitled to acquittal on this count – Non-examination of material witness has definitely dented prosecution case – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 22, 25, 39, 40, 46, 47 and 52)

(B) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Last-seen theory – In all cases, it cannot be said that evidence of last seen together has to be rejected merely because there is a time gap between accused and deceased last seen together and crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration – If prosecution is able to lead evidence that likelihood of any person other than accused being author of crime becomes impossible then evidence of circumstance of last seen together although there is a long duration of time in between can be considered as one of circumstances in chain of circumstances to prove guilt against such accused persons – Circumstance of last seen together does not by itself lead to inference that it was accused who had committed crime – There must be something more to establish nexus between accused and crime – Mere non-explanation on part of accused by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against accused. (Paras 30 and 31)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Word ‘fact’ contemplated in Section 27 of Evidence Act is not limited to ‘actual physical material object – Discovery of fact contemplated under Section 27 of Evidence Act arises by reason of fact that information given by accused exhibited his knowledge or mental awareness as to its existence at a particular place. (Paras 36 and 38)

Facts of the case:

Appellant was convicted under Sections 366(A)/302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 with a default stipulation for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 3,000.00, again with a default stipulation. Appellant was also sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 with a default stipulation for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Findings of Court:

Judgment and order of the High Court dated 11.08.2010 as well as that of the Sessions Court dated 20.03.2007 are hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and is set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other crime.

Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.