Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2361

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, C.J., ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
The State Of Assam, Rep. By The P.P., Assam – Petitioner
Versus
Rajen Doley Jorhat, Assam – Respondent
Death Sentence Ref. No.1 of 2020, Crl.A. No.153 of 2020, Crl. A. No.152 of 2020
Decided On : 18-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:PP, Assam, Advocate, Mr J. Payeng
For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Das (Amicus Curiae)

In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events excluding all hypotheses of innocence. Extrajudicial confessions made in police presence are inadmissible, and weapon recoveries from open points without specific information linkage do not constitute valid evidence for conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 201, 302, 364 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27 - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Admissibility of extrajudicial confession - Recovery of incriminating material - Principles for conviction on circumstantial evidence.

(B) Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and excludes every other possible hypothesis. Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. (Paras 31, 33, 35).

(C) Confessional Statements: A confession made by an accused while in police custody to a person other than a police officer, if made in the presence of a police officer, is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 44, 45).

(D) Recovery of Weapons: The admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act depends on the discovery of a fact as a direct consequence of the information provided. Recoveries from open, accessible places without corroborative evidence linking the information to the specific accused do not substantiate a charge. (Paras 46, 47).

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the victims were abducted and murdered by the accused following allegations of practicing witchcraft. The trial court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the victims being last seen with the accused, extrajudicial confessions, and the recovery of weapons. The defense challenged the conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that the confessions were inadmissible as they were made while the accused were in police custody.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of circumstances. Evidence of the victims being last seen with the accused was absent. The extrajudicial confessions were recorded in the presence of police officers, rendering them inadmissible. Further, the recovery of weapons occurred in open areas, failing to meet the legal requirements for discovery evidence under the Evidence Act.

Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions made in police presence, the validity of weapon recovery as evidence, and whether the gathered circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain to justify the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Circumstantial evidence must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, excluding every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Confessions obtained in police presence are inadmissible, and recoveries from open spaces do not satisfy the statutory requirements for discovery, resulting in a failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Conviction and sentence set aside; all accused persons acquitted.

Table of Content
1. consolidation of criminal appeals and reference cases by the high court. (Para 1 , 2)
2. summary of prosecution case, investigation procedures, and initial trial court conviction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. parties' contentions regarding evidentiary insufficiency and admissibility. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. critical judicial analysis of prosecution witness testimonies and investigation methodology. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
5. application of the five golden principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. failure of the prosecution to establish the 'chain of events' in a circumstantial case. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
7. inadmissibility of extrajudicial confessions made in police custody under the evidence act. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
8. absence of reliable, independent evidence for conviction based on circumstantial theory. (Para 48 , 49 , 50)
9. acquittal and discharge based on the failure of the prosecution's evidentiary substratum. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Choudhury, J.

1. The Death Sentence Reference No. 1/2020 and Criminal Appeal No. 152/2020 & Criminal Appeal No. 153/2020 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment & order.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 41/2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 125/2012 registered under Sections 302/143/201/364 of IPC, the appellants were convicted under Sections 302/143/201/364 of IPC and in Crl.A. No. 152/2020, the appellant, Shri Rajen Doley was sentenced to death for committing the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and in Crl.A. No.153/2020, the appellants, namely, (i) Shri Atul Doley (ii) Shri Biswa Patir (iii) Shri Baku Doley (iv) Shri Bimal Patir@ Birinchi (v) Shri Bamun Doley (vi) Shri Raju Doley (vii) Shri Lakhindra Patir Lotikai (viii) Shri Jan Doley (ix) Shri Janma Doley and (x) Shri Anil Doley, were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The remaining two accused, who faced trial, Shri Pulin Doley died during the trial, and Shri Limai @ Nimai Doley, though convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, has not preferred any appeal. The accused persons were also convicted for the commission of an offence under Section 364 IPC and were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused were also convicted for committing an offence under Section 201 of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only each. In default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. For committing the offence under Section 143 of IPC, the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only each. In default of payment of the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The sentences were to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution's case in a nutshell is that on 29.08.2012, one Shri Ranjit Patir (PW-5) and Shri Brojen Misong (PW-6), gave information before the Officer-in-Charge, Garmur Police Station, Majuli, that some villagers of Luhit Chapori Village forcefully took Shri Rajkumar Doley, Shri Bornali Doley and their son Shri Jitu Doley to an unknown place and killed them for practising witchcraft. Upon receipt of the said information, GD Entry No. 464/2012 dated 29.08.2012 was made, and the incident was