Gauhati High Court Overturns Murder Conviction Citing Inadmissible Evidence and Insufficient Proof

Guwahati, Assam – June 11, 2025 – The Gauhati High Court today allowed a criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and life sentences of Sahabuddin Ahmed @ Jun Ahmed and Rakibuddin Ahmed @ Bhaiti Ahmed for murder and destruction of evidence. The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice ManishChoudhury and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Mitali Thakuria , found that the prosecution's case, primarily based on circumstantial evidence, was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to critical flaws in evidence admissibility and overall insufficiency of proof.

Case Background

The appeal (Crl.A. 80 / 2025) challenged the Judgment dated 12.12.2024 and Order on Sentence dated 19.12.2024 by the Sessions Judge, Charaideo at Sonari. The trial court had convicted the two appellants (A-2 and A-3) along with a third accused, Sanjib Paul (A-1), under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.

The prosecution's case revolved around the death of Jonaki Gowala . It was alleged that Sanjib Paul (A-1), who purportedly had an illicit relationship with the deceased, conspired with the appellants Sahabuddin Ahmed (A-2) and Rakibuddin Ahmed (A-3) to murder her. The deceased's body was found in a decomposed state in a drain on August 29, 2008, following which an FIR was lodged by her son, Ananta Gowala (P.W.9), on September 4, 2008.

Key Arguments

Appellants' Contentions (Advocate Mr. P. Kataki): The primary challenge from the appellants' counsel was against the trial court's reliance on inadmissible evidence.

* Inadmissibility of Ext.-P-8: The statement of Chittaranjan Dasgupta , recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, was wrongly admitted. Mr. Dasgupta died before the trial, and the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine him, a prerequisite under Section 33 of the Evidence Act for admitting prior testimony.

* Confessions to Police: The trial court erroneously relied on testimonies suggesting confessions made by the accused to police officers, which are barred under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

* Lack of Discovery: No valid discovery was made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act based on any disclosure statement.

State's Submissions (Ms. B. Bhuyan, Senior Counsel & Addl. Public Prosecutor): The State defended the trial court's judgment, arguing: * Evidence on record indicated that the deceased was last seen with A-1. * The appellants were hired by A-1 to assist in the murder, making them equally liable as partners in the crime.

High Court's Scrutiny and Findings

The High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence presented by the prosecution, which included 21 witnesses and 17 documents.

Inadmissibility of Chittaranjan Dasgupta 's Statement (Ext.-P-8)

The Court found merit in the appellants' argument regarding Ext.-P-8. Justice Choudhury , writing for the bench, observed: > "From the rule of evidence embedded in Section 33 of the Evidence Act, it is clearly evident that one of the essential pre-requisites is that the adverse party must have both the right and the opportunity of cross-examining the witness... As the appellants herein neither had the right nor had the opportunity to cross-examine the person named Chittaranjan Dasgupta who later on expired, the statement exhibited by the prosecution as Ext.-P-8 cannot be read into evidence as it is inadmissible in law."

Furthermore, the Court noted that even if considered, the statement (Ext.-P-8) "does not even contain a whisper, not to speak of any allegation of fact, against the present two appellants."

Confessions to Police Barred by Evidence Act

Several prosecution witnesses, including journalists (P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.18), testified about hearing the accused confess their guilt to police. The High Court reiterated the established legal principle: > "Even if the testimony... regarding making of confession by the two appellants before the Police personnel is accepted to be true, then also such confession is not admissible in evidence because of the prohibitions contained in Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act."

Failure to Establish Chain of Circumstantial Evidence

The trial court had listed 17 circumstances it found established by the prosecution. The High Court, upon analysis, concluded that the circumstances implicating the present appellants (circumstances [ix] to [xvii]) were not established by "cogent, reliable and admissible evidence."

Recovery of Rope Clouded: The Court highlighted inconsistencies regarding the recovery of a plastic rope (Ext.-P-2), allegedly used in the crime. P.W.10 testified the rope was found near the body on August 29, 2008 (prior to FIR and appellants' arrest), while the I.O. (P.W.21) claimed it was seized on September 6, 2008, based on A-1's disclosure. This discrepancy rendered the recovery doubtful and the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act questionable.

Hearsay and Unreliable Testimonies: Many witnesses provided hearsay evidence or had no direct knowledge of the appellants' involvement. The informant (P.W.9), son of the deceased, did not depose anything against the appellants.

No "Last Seen Together" Evidence: The Court explicitly stated, "There is no iota of evidence on record to hold - [i] that the two appellants herein were seen with the accused A-1 at any time; and/or [ii] that they were seen together with the deceased at any point of time... Therefore, there cannot be an occasion for the prosecution to bring in the last seen theory qua the two appellants herein."

Fundamental Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence

The judgment emphasized cardinal principles of criminal law: > "It is settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof and there is a large difference between something that ‘may be proved’ and that ‘must be proved’... The prosecution has the burden to cover the distance between may be true’ and must be true’, by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence..."

The Court also noted that "the prosecution has also not been able to establish that the death of the deceased was a homicidal one," possibly due to the decomposed state of the body when found.

Charge Under Section 201 IPC Not Sustained

With the primary charge of murder (Section 302 IPC) failing against the appellants, the Court found that the ingredients for the offence of causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) were also not met.

Judgment

Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case against Sahabuddin Ahmed and Rakibuddin Ahmed beyond all reasonable doubt, the High Court held: > "Consequently, we find ourselves not in agreement with the finding of guilt arrived at by the Trial Court... Having held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the two appellants beyond all reasonable doubt by way of clear, reliable and credible evidence, we find that the Judgment dated 12.12.2024 and the Order on sentence dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside."

The criminal appeal was allowed, and the appellants were ordered to be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case. The Court also reiterated the trial court's direction for expeditious disbursement of compensation to P.W.9, the son of the victim.