SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 420

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Tibhu Tanti, S/o. Late Kamdev Tanti And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Assam, To Be Rep. by The P.P., Assam And Anr. – Respondents 
Crl. A. No.353 of 2022
Decided On : 31-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Shri A. Ahmed, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate & APP, Assam, assisted by Ms. R. Das, Advocate.

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of events excluding all other hypotheses of innocence. Grave suspicion cannot replace legal proof, and the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act only shifts if the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Murder committed in furtherance of common intention - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Chain of circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, excluding every other reasonable hypothesis - Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of legal proof. (Paras 18, 34)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Onus does not shift to the accused under the last seen theory unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case and the links in the chain of circumstances are complete. (Paras 15, 20)

(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Scope of appeal against conviction - Appellate court must ensure that conviction is based on conclusive evidence rather than conjectures. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a conviction for murder. It was alleged that the deceased was forcibly taken from his home to a neighbor's house, tied up, and brutally assaulted with blunt weapons before the body was discarded in a river. The alleged motive was based on a suspicion of witchcraft following the death of a girl. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the victim's wife and post-mortem findings.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime. The testimonies of the sons of the deceased were either inconsistent with the initial complaint or hostile. The wife of the deceased witnessed the victim being taken away but did not see the assault. While the medical evidence confirmed a homicidal death via blunt weapons, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances linking the appellants to the act.

Issues: Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the absence of an explanation from the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was sufficient for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction in cases of circumstantial evidence requires the prosecution to prove a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The last seen theory alone, without other positive evidence or a prima facie case, is insufficient to shift the burden of proof to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 17, 20, 34)

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • offences against the person
      • murder (Para 1, 11, 36)
  • practice and procedure
    • criminal procedure
      • appeal (Para 1, 37)
      • conviction and sentencing (Para 36)
    • evidence
      • circumstantial evidence (Para 18, 26, 34, 35)
      • last seen theory (Para 17)
      • hostile witness (Para 29)

Table of Contents

1. Appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Circumstantial evidence – Death due to assault over witchcraft suspicion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

2. Appellants argued insufficient circumstantial evidence, no eyewitness; prosecution relied on last seen theory and motive. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

3. Conviction set aside; appellants acquitted and directed to be released forthwith. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 )

4. What are the requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence?

The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclude every other hypothesis, and form a complete chain. (Para 18 , 26 , 34 , 35 )

5. Can suspicious circumstances alone sustain a conviction?

No; suspicion cannot replace proof. Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; benefit of doubt given if chain incomplete. (Para 18 , 34 , 35 )

6. When does the last seen theory become applicable?

It applies when the time gap between last seen and finding dead body is so small that possibility of any other person being perpetrator is impossible; it alone is insufficient. (Para 17 )

7. What is the effect of a hostile witness's testimony?

The evidence of a hostile witness is not totally rejected; the part consistent with the case of prosecution or defence may be accepted. (Para 29 )

8. Under what circumstances does Section 106 of the Evidence Act shift the onus to the accused?

Only after the prosecution establishes a prima facie case; mere last seen theory does not suffice to shift the onus. (Para 15 , 20 , 35 )

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

This instant Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding to Section 415 of the BNSS] against the judgment and order dated 05.11.2022 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 241/2016 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS and 3(5) BNS] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) i/d to undergo S.I. for 6 months.

2. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 13.07.2016 by one Pawan Bawri, who is the son of the deceased. It was alleged inter-alia that on the said date at about 12.15 am as their neighbour Dipanjali Uria, daughter of Late Kamdev Uria had died out of an ailment, it was suspected that the said death was because of some incantation of his father. At around 1.30 am, Sri Mahesh Uria, younger brother of Late Kamdev Uria and son of Ghana Uria, accompanied by a resident of the Bahbari Branch of the Tea Estate, armed with weapons had trespassed into their house and took his father Shri Lal Bawri forcibly from their house to the house of the neighbour Tibhu Tanti where they tied his father to a post of the verandah and then Tibhu Tanti and Mahesh Uria, in association with the people of the village had brutally killed his father by assaulting him throughout the night with weapons like rod, hammer, spike etc. Thereafter, they had dragged the dead body of his father and threw it in river Kakodonga. It has also been alleged that though he was hearing the scream of his father when the miscreants were torturing him, they did not allow him to go near his father. The police had recovered the body of the father from the river in the morning.

3. Based on the aforesaid Ejahar, the FIR was registered as Pulibor P.S. Case No. 197/2016 and investigation had begun. In the said investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, seizure of incriminating materials made, inquest done, sketch maps prepared and after completion of the formalities, the charge sheet was laid against four persons including the present two appellants. On denial of the charges, the trial had begun in which the prosecution had adduced evidence through 6 nos. of prosecution witnesses.

4. The informant had deposed as PW-1. He had stated that on the relevant day, he was at Naharani and at night his mother had told him that Mahesh Uria had called his father and took him away from their house and thereafter, he was taken to Tibhu Tanti’s house. At 6.00 am, PW-1 had arrived home and found his mother crying and she told him that his father was killed and thrown into river Kakodonga. Thereafter, the police brought the dead body of his father to the house and he saw injuries on his entire body and his frontal teeth were missing. Accordingly, the Ejahar was lodged which was proved as Ext. 1. In his cross- examination, he had however stated that he did not know what was written in the Ejahar and had put his signature as he was asked to do. He had also stated that accused Mahesh Uria was their neighbour and his father used to accompany him on outings. He had however denied the suggestion that his mother did not tell him that his father had been hacked and thrown into the river. He had however admitted that the mother did not tell him who had killed him. He had also stated that his father used to consume liquor and denied the fact that his father had an illness of shivering and that the accused persons were not involved in the murder of his father.

5. PW-2 is another son of the deceased who is the younger brother of the informant. He had stated that on the date of the occurrence, he was at home and a girl, namely, Dipanjali Uria of the neighbourhood had died. At that time, his father had gone to see the dead body of Dipanjali Uria. After a while, one Bapu Bawri came to their house and said that his father w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top