2025 Supreme(Gau) 2366

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, Represented By PP Assam – Petitioner 
Versus
Sri Bikash Das, S/o. Late Rajmohan Das - Respondent 
Death Sentence Ref. No.4 of 2019, CRL.A(J) No.92 of 2019
Decided On : 18-09-2025

In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete, unbroken chain of events that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Evidence such as confessions or crime scene recreations performed while in police custody is inadmissible unless resulting in the discovery of new facts.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 376(1) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27, and 65D - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 100(4), 161, 164, and 313 - Homicidal death and sexual assault - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Essentiality of established chain - Prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances inconsistent with innocence - Suspicion cannot replace legal proof - Confessional statements made while in police custody are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act - Crime scene recreation without discovery of new facts constitutes only a reproduction of known evidence and lacks independent evidentiary value - Requirement for independent witnesses in search and seizure mandates compliance with Section 100 CrPC; absence of such witnesses without reasonable explanation casts doubt on recovery. (Paras 58, 60, 61, 80, 81, 83)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution contended that the accused committed rape and murder on a moving train. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the victim's personal belongings from the accused, DNA samples from items found at the scene, and an extrajudicial confession evidenced through a crime scene reconstruction. The trial court convicted the accused and imposed the death penalty.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the circumstantial chain was incomplete and failed to exclude the hypothesis of innocence. There was no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. Seizures were not corroborated by independent witnesses, forensic links were weak, chain of custody for biological samples was compromised, and the identification of the accused by witnesses was unreliable due to prior exposure to media images. Furthermore, the statements relied upon were obtained while the accused was in police custody, rendering them inadmissible.

Issues: The main issues were whether the circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain of guilt and whether confessions and crime scene reconstructions performed while in police custody could be admissible evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The legal standard for conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of facts ruling out any alternative reasonable hypothesis. Statements or demonstrations made in police custody, particularly confession-like acts not leading to the discovery of new facts under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, are inadmissible. The court reaffirmed that a conviction cannot rest on suspicion; it must be founded upon cogent, unimpeachable evidence that satisfies the high threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

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