Incomplete Circumstantial Evidence Chain & Lack of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Leads to Acquittal in S.302 IPC Fratricide Case: Gauhati High Court - 2025-05-03

Gauhati High Court Acquits Man in Brother's Murder Case, Cites Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court recently acquitted Arun Tanti , who was previously convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his brother, Keshab Tanti . The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer , overturned the conviction passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali, citing significant gaps in the prosecution's case, which relied solely on circumstantial evidence.

Case Background

The prosecution's case stemmed from an incident on October 29, 2018, where Arun Tanti was accused of fatally attacking his brother Keshab with an axe following a domestic quarrel at their shared company quarters in Sakomato Tea Estate. The First Information Report (Ejahar) was lodged the next day by Bhabananda Tanti (PW-2), another brother of the appellant and the deceased. Arun Tanti was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [corresponding to Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)]. As there were no eyewitnesses, the trial court convicted the appellant based on circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution through 10 witnesses.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Defence (Argued by Amicus Curiae Shri R. Sarma): * The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances pointing solely to the appellant's guilt. * Key testimonies were unreliable or inconclusive: * PW-1 (mother) did not witness the incident and learned about it from PW-3. * PW-3 (deceased's minor son) was not present during the incident, and his later testimony about seeing the appellant in the morning was inconsistent with other evidence regarding the timeline of police arrival and discovery. Concerns were also raised about the procedure for recording a minor's testimony. * PW-5 (neighbour in the same quarter) did not hear any quarrel on the night of the incident. * Evidence regarding extrajudicial confessions (deposed by PW-2 and PW-4) was inadmissible, likely made before police or under duress (hit by Sections 24 & 25 of the Indian Evidence Act). * The recovery of the alleged weapon (axe) was flawed: no bloodstains were found, no forensic analysis (fingerprints, serology) was conducted, and seizure witness testimonies were inconsistent. * Vital witnesses, like the VDP Secretaries mentioned by PW-8 and PW-11, were not examined. * While a plea of alibi was hinted at during the S.313 CrPC examination, the primary burden remained on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Respondent's Case (Argued by Addl. Public Prosecutor Ms. B. Bhuyan): * The appellant and deceased lived together (PW-1). * PW-3 saw the appellant near the deceased's body the morning after. * Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellant, who was likely present, to explain the circumstances of the death. * Extrajudicial confessions (PW-2, PW-4) and the appellant allegedly leading to the discovery of the axe pointed towards guilt. * Medical evidence (PW-10) confirmed death by injuries consistent with an axe. * Cited Trimukh Maroti Kirkan regarding the burden of proof under Section 106 in cases occurring within a house and Shaikh Sattar on the burden to prove an alibi.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, emphasizing the stringent requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, referencing the principles laid down in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh .

The Court identified several critical weaknesses:

Lack of Proof of Presence: The prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the appellant and the deceased were together inside the house at the time of the incident. PW-3 had left the previous evening when there was no quarrel, and PW-5 (neighbour) heard nothing unusual.

Inconsistencies & Unreliable Testimony: The Court found PW-3's account of seeing the appellant brushing his teeth near the body inconsistent with the timeline established by PW-8 (Sarkari Gaonburah) and PW-11 (Investigating Officer) regarding when the incident became known and police arrived. Doubts were also cast on the reliability of the minor PW-3's testimony.

Inadmissible Confessions: Extrajudicial confessions were deemed unreliable and likely inadmissible under Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act due to potential police presence and evidence suggesting the appellant was assaulted by villagers before his arrest.

Flawed Weapon Recovery: The lack of a formal discovery memo, absence of bloodstains on the seized axe, and failure to conduct forensic tests severely weakened the link between the weapon and the appellant/crime.

Failure to Examine Key Witnesses: Non-examination of the VDP secretaries who first reported the incident was a significant lapse.

The Court acknowledged the principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act but stated it applies only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts, including the appellant's presence, which was not done here beyond a reasonable doubt. While the appellant's alibi plea wasn't proven, the Court reiterated (citing Shaikh Sattar ) that the prosecution's case must stand independently.

Quoting Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam , the Court stressed: > "Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof... In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof."

The Court concluded that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and inconsistent, allowing for hypotheses other than the appellant's guilt. Applying the principle that where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted ( Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh ), the benefit of the doubt was granted.

Final Decision

The Gauhati High Court set aside the judgment and order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Biswanath Chariali. Arun Tanti was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 BNS] and ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. The Court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, Shri R. Sarma.