Suspicion Cannot Replace Legal Proof; Gauhati HC Acquits Man in Murder Case Citing Flawed Circumstantial Evidence & Unproved Seizures - 2025-07-09

Gauhati High Court Overturns Murder Conviction, Cites 'Gaps' in Circumstantial Evidence

Guwahati, Assam – The Gauhati High Court has acquitted Ajay Kuli of murder, setting aside his life imprisonment sentence, in a significant ruling that underscores the high burden of proof required in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer held that "suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof," and found the prosecution's chain of evidence incomplete and riddled with inconsistencies.

The High Court overturned the March 2023 judgment of the Sessions Judge, Majuli, which had convicted Mr. Kuli for the murder of Niranjan Pegu in February 2022.

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case began after Niranjan Pegu was found severely injured in Selek village, Majuli, and later succumbed to his injuries. The police charge-sheeted three individuals, including the appellant Ajay Kuli , alleging that they had murdered the deceased due to a love triangle and monetary disputes. The trial court acquitted two of the accused but convicted Mr. Kuli under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment based on circumstantial evidence.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appellant's Counsel, Shri J. Payeng , argued that the prosecution's case was built on a weak foundation with no eyewitnesses. The key arguments for the appellant included:

* Hearsay Evidence: Most witness testimonies were based on what they had "heard from the public" rather than direct observation.

* Contradictory Testimonies: Crucial witnesses provided conflicting accounts. The victim’s own father (PW2) testified that he initially heard his son was in a motorcycle accident.

* Dying Declaration: Two witnesses (PW11 and PW12) testified that the victim, before becoming unconscious, told them he had met with an accident.

* Unproven Seizures: The recovery of the alleged murder weapon—a bamboo lathi—was not legally proven, as the attesting witnesses failed to prove their signatures on the seizure list.

* Flawed Investigation: The Investigating Officer failed to collect bloodstains for forensic analysis and did not properly record a disclosure statement for the weapon recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem (PW15) admitted the injuries could have been caused by an accident.

The State's Counsel , on the other hand, contended that the chain of circumstances was complete. The prosecution pointed to evidence of a prior threat, the victim being present in the village, the discovery of bloodstains, and the recovery of the weapon and the victim's motorcycle as sufficient proof of the appellant's guilt.

Court's Analysis and Verdict

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found several fatal flaws in the prosecution's narrative. The bench observed that the case rested on "five golden principles" for circumstantial evidence, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra , which were not met.

The Court highlighted several key weaknesses:

* Witness Credibility: The testimonies of key witnesses were either hearsay or contradicted by other evidence and their own initial statements to the police.

* Failure to Prove Seizure: The court noted, "the seizure of the lathi has not been proved in accordance with law," which severely weakened the link between the appellant and the alleged crime.

* Alternative Hypothesis: The possibility that the victim died due to a motorcycle accident, as suggested by the victim's own statement and the medical expert's testimony, could not be ruled out. The judgment stated, "...the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved."

* Suspicion vs. Proof: Quoting the Supreme Court, the bench reiterated that a large gap exists between "may be" and "must be" proved. "In the conspectus of the aforesaid decision, we are of the considered opinion that the circumstances existing would not lead to an inevitable conclusion of complicity / guilt of the appellant," the Court concluded.

Finding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the appellant's guilt, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence.

"The appellant is accordingly directed to be released forthwith, unless he is wanted in any other case," the order stated.