The acquittal of respondents was upheld due to the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence linking them to the alleged crimes, emphasizing the necessity for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State (appellant). Also heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Sessions Case No. 18/2007, G.R Case No. 327/2005, from the charge under Sections 364 /302/34 IPC.

3. The case of the appellant is that on 28.04.2025, one Md. Hamid Ali (PW-1) lodged an FIR at Belsor Police Station, alleging inter alia, that his daughter Monowara Begum was missing since the evening of 25.04.2025. Though a search had been conducted, she was untraceable. However, on 28.04.2005 at around 1:00 P.M, the dead body of Monowara Begum was found in a pond located in the back of the house of the cousin of PW-1, i.e., one Md. Saifuddin. PW- 1 suspected that his daughter had been kidnapped by (1) Md. Samser Ali, (2) Samnur Ali, (3) Mir Hussain Ali, (4) Mrs. Jalekha Bibi, (5) Jerina Bibi and (6) Rafiqul Hussain (respondents) on 25.04.2005. Further, they had murdered Monowara Begum and threw her dead body into the pond. Belsor Police Station Case No. 41/2005 was thereafter registered under Sections 302 /364 IPC.

4. After investigation was completed, the case I.O submitted the Charge-sheet, having found a prima facie case under Sections 364 /302/34 IPC against the six respondents. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges under Sections 364 /302/34 IPC against the respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Though the case I.O had listed 28 prosecution witnesses to bring home the charges under Sections 364 /302/34 IPC, the learned Trial Court examined only 15 prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein they all took a stand that the evidence adduced against them were false.

6. The learned Trial Court thereafter came to a finding that there was no iota of evidence against the respondents, regarding the allegation of kidnapping of the deceased and that the case of the prosecution had been based on concoction and surmises, without any convincing and cogent evidence to inspire the confidence of the Court. As such, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had been unable to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them, by giving them the benefit of doubt.

7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the entire evidence on record. She submits that PW-2, who is the mother of the deceased, had stated in her evidence that the accused Jerina Bibi (sister of Mir Hussain Ali), had admitted before the Police in the presence of the villagers, that the victim was in love with the accused Mir Hussain Ali at the time of her death and that she was 2 months pregnant. Further, as there was some deformity on the upper lip of the deceased, the family of the accused Mir Hussain Ali, who is the boyfriend of the deceased, did not agree to the marriage proposal between the deceased and Mir Hussain Ali. As such, PW-2 suspected that the accused persons had murdered her daughter Monowara Begum.

8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of PW-2 is also to the effect that due to the deformity in the upper lip (cleft lip) of the deceased, the marriage proposal of the deceased with her boyfriend Mir Hussain Ali had been rejected by the family of Mir Hussain Ali, which could be a motive for the crime.

9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that PW-