Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 660

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
Hasanur Rahman, S/o. Late Muzammel Hoque – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam. Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Assam – Respondent
CRL.A. NO. 149 of 2023
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A. Ahmed, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. A. Begum, Additional Public Posecutor

In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events excluding all hypotheses of innocence. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden of proof to the accused until the prosecution has established a prima facie case through reliable evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 498-A - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 103 and 106 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Death in matrimonial home - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of events excluding every hypothesis except guilt - Mere occurrence of death in matrimonial home is insufficient for conviction without establishing the accused's exclusive presence or opportunity. (Paras 7, 18, 27)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Section 106 of Evidence Act - Does not relieve prosecution of primary burden to establish a prima facie case - Cannot be used to fill gaps in prosecution evidence - Adverse inference for non-examination of material witness - Where a witness who could unfold the genesis of the incident is withheld, the court may draw an adverse inference. (Paras 22, 24, 25, 28)

Facts of the case:
The deceased died in the matrimonial home. The incident was initially reported as suicide, but medical evidence indicated homicidal strangulation. The prosecution charged the spouse with murder and cruelty. The trial court convicted the accused, relying on the location of death and the medical report. The accused appealed, arguing that the circumstantial evidence was incomplete and that the prosecution failed to prove his presence or exclusive access.

Findings of Court:
The court found that while the homicidal nature of death was established, the prosecution failed to prove the accused's presence at the time of the incident. The presence of other individuals and the ongoing social gathering at the residence created reasonable doubt. The failure to examine the initial informant, who could have clarified the circumstances, created a significant gap in the prosecution's case.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and whether the burden of proof shifted to the accused under the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the burden to the accused until the prosecution has established a prima facie case. The non-examination of a material witness and the failure to prove exclusive access by the accused rendered the chain of circumstances incomplete, necessitating an acquittal.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Judgment :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, and Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2] This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.02.2023 and the order of sentence dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Sessions Case No. T1/19/2019, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 498- A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine.

3] The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.03.2018, information was received at Kazigaon Police Station that the deceased had allegedly committed suicide by hanging. Upon receipt of such information, a G.D. entry was made and the police visited the place of occurrence, where the dead body was found lying on the veranda of the house.

4] Subsequently, an FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased, leading to registration of Kazigaon P.S. Case No. 16/2018 under Sections 498-A/302 of the Indian Penal Code, 186 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted and the accused was put to trial.

5] Charges under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6] The prosecution examined six witnesses and one court witness. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and took the plea of suicide.

7] Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with the guilt of the accused. He submits that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the accused/appellant strangulated the deceased to death. Mere occurrence of death in the matrimonial home, by itself, is insufficient to sustain conviction. It is further contended that unless the prosecution establishes the incriminating circumstances, no burden arises upon the accused to explain the cause of death. In cases based on circumstantial evidence, unless the chain is complete and excludes every hypothesis except guilt, conviction cannot be sustained. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the following decisions.

(i) Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar , reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 710

(ii) Manoj Alias Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 2026 SC 241

(iii) Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 289

(iv) Rejina Karmakar v. The State of Assam and Anr. , in Crl.A.(J) No. 11/2021.

8] Per contra, Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that since the death occurred in the matrimonial home and the defence of suicide stands ruled out by medical evidence, the burden shifts upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. His failure to explain the circumstances constitutes an additional link completing the chain of circumstances. Reliance is placed on Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand , reported in 2023 16 SCC 575

9] We have given our prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have also perused the material available on record. We have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.

10] The principal question that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a complete chain of circumstances, consistent only with the guilt of the accused and excluding every hypothesis consistent with innocence?

11] PW-1 (Md. Nowsad Ali) deposed that he is the co