Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1380
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Michael Zothankhuma, Shamima Jahan, JJ.
Sanjoy Kumara Saha D/O Subodh Ch. Saha And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Public Prosecutor And Ors. - Respondents
Crl.A. 213 of 2022
Decided On : 14-08-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. S.H. Borah, Addl. PP, Mr. S. Borthakur, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Gogoi, Adv.
For a recovery to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the exact information given by the accused must be recorded in writing or proved through evidence; otherwise, it cannot be used to establish guilt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act - Section 27 - Recovery of object - Requirement of recording exact words - For a discovery to be admissible under Section 27, the information must be recorded in writing or the exact words uttered by the accused must be proved through evidence. (Para 19, 20, 21)
(B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of evidence - Recovery of an object without proof of its link to the crime or the absence of a complete chain of circumstances is insufficient to overturn an order of acquittal. (Para 21, 22, 25)
(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Appeal against Acquittal - Standard of interference - An order of acquittal should not be overturned if the trial court's view is a possible view, even if another view is possible. (Para 12, 24)
Issues: Whether the recovery of the mobile phone and money was sufficient to overturn the acquittal of the respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the crime and trial court's acquittal based on lack of evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the recovery of a mobile phone and money as circumstantial evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. admissibility of recovery under section 27 of the evidence act requiring recorded exact words. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. insufficiency of money recovery and the principle that suspicion cannot replace proof. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. standard for overturning acquittal and final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
M. Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4.
2. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 from the charges framed against them under Sections 302/34 and Sections 392/34 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No.191/2014 vide Judgment & Order dated 01.07.2022. The respondent no.1 is the State.
3. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR dated 06.01.2014 had been submitted by the informant (respondent no.2 herein), who was subsequently arrested as accused No.2 (A-2). The said FIR stated that some unknown persons had killed the informant's (A-2) uncle Subudh Saha on 05.01.2014 in his bedroom, after tying his hands and legs. When the maid of the house, Prosecution Witness-3 (PW-3) went for work, she found the door open and Subudh Saha lying dead on his bed. Pursuant to the FIR, Dudhnoi P.S. Case No.4/2014 under Section 302 IPC was registered.
4. During investigation, 3 accused persons were arrested, who are the present respondent Nos.2 to 4. While the respondent Nos.2 (Accused No.1) & 4 (Accused No.3) were employees of the deceased, the respondent No.3(A-2) is the informant and the nephew of the deceased. After investigation had been completed by the Investigating Officer (PW-15), charge-sheet was submitted by S.I. Banikanta Sharma, who has however expired. PW-15 did not submit the charge-sheet, as he had been transferred.
5. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 392/34 IPC against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 16(sixteen) Prosecution witnesses and after examining the 3 accused persons under Sections 313 Cr.P.C, came to a finding that the Prosecution had not been able to prove the charges framed against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted them by giving them the benefit of doubt.
6. The evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court show that there was no eyewitness to the crime in question. The evidence of the Doctor (PW-13) is to the effect that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia which was homicidal and ante-mortem in nature.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has basically relied upon the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who are the daughters of the deceased, besides the evidence of PWs-7 & 8 who are independent witnesses, in support of his submission that the respondent No.3, who was the accused No.2, had killed the deceased, as the mobile phone of the deceased had been recovered from a pond on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the respondent No.3.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that Rs.30,610/- had apparently been recovered from the possession of the respondent No.2 (accused No.1), i.e, Krishna Bahadur Bhujel, while Rs.3,500/- had been recovered from the cash box of the shop on being led to the same by the respondent No.3 (A-2), i.e, Pijush Saha.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses shows that the respondent No.3 had asked f
