Circumstantial Evidence and Benefit of Doubt: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Marjina Begum Murder Case, Citing Incomplete Chain and Lack of Motive

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: BANI ALAM MAZID @ DHAN VS. STATE OF ASSAM.

Citation: 2025 INSC 260 (Reportable)

Background

This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati, which dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 88/2007 filed by the appellant.

Criminal Appeal No. 88/2007 was filed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kamrup, in Sessions Case No. 16(K)/2005, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 366(A)/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 with a default stipulation for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000.00, again with a default stipulation. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 with a default stipulation for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Prosecution Case

The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 26.08.2003 at about 02:00 PM, PW-1 Amzad Ali lodged a first information before the Hajo Police Station stating that on 22.08.2003 at about 03:30 PM, the appellant along with Mohd. Jahangir Ali (co-accused) had kidnapped his minor daughter Marjina Begum (16 years). The first informant alleged that his daughter had taken away Rs. 60,000.00 in cash from his house. He stated that though there was a search for the girl, she could not be traced out.

One Aklima Bibi, mother of the appellant Bani Alam Majid, and one Farid Ali, husband of the elder sister of the appellant, came and told the first informant that the appellant had kidnapped his daughter and had kept her at Mukalmuwa with the intention of marrying her. These two persons had assured him that their marriage would be arranged and, therefore, requested him and his family members not to lodge any complaint before the police. However, as there was no trace of the missing girl for about four days, the FIR in question was lodged.

On the basis of the first information, Hajo P.S. Case No. 131/2003 was registered under Sections 366(A)/34 IPC. The appellant and co-accused Jahangir Ali were arrested. In the course of investigation, the dead body of the victim girl was found. At the conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against both the accused persons under Sections 366(A)/302/201/34 IPC.

The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under the aforesaid provisions to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Co-accused Jahangir Ali examined himself as DW-1. After the evidence was recorded, statements of the accused persons, including that of the appellant, were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as well as the co-accused as above.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, both the accused persons preferred separate appeals before the High Court. The High Court set aside the conviction of the accused persons, including that of the appellant, under Section 366(A) IPC but affirmed their conviction under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. Sentences imposed for commission of the aforesaid offences by the Court of Sessions were maintained. The related appeals were accordingly dismissed.

Appellant's Submissions

The appellant's counsel submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The High Court discarded the extra-judicial confessions of the appellant made before some of the witnesses on the ground that those were made in the presence of the police. However, the High Court held that the other two circumstances of last seen together and leading to discovery were proved against the appellant and on such basis, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

Regarding the theory of last seen together, the counsel submitted that though PW-2 is stated to have seen the two together, she herself deposed that there was neither any coercion by the appellant nor any force applied by him while taking away the victim in the vehicle. PW-2 neither resisted nor raised an alarm. Though the victim remained untraceable thereafter for several days, she again did not raise any alarm.

The counsel argued that the appellant had no reason or motive to cause the death of the victim girl, as they were in a romantic relationship and the appellant's mother and brother-in-law were reported to have told PW-1, the victim girl's father, that the two of them would get married.

It was further submitted that there was no recovery of the cash amount of Rs. 60,000.00 allegedly taken away by the victim girl from her house as she went with the appellant. No investigation was carried out by the police in this direction and consequently, no recovery of cash was made.

The theory of leading to discovery does not inspire confidence as it was an extension of the extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant before some of the prosecution witnesses, which were not accepted by the High Court. The extra-judicial confessions and the theory of leading to discovery are intrinsically connected.

State's Arguments

The counsel for the State submitted that both the trial court and the High Court correctly convicted the appellant under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. The evidence on record clearly and correctly proves the commission of offence by the appellant.

The evidence on record reveals that from the time the victim girl went with the appellant till her death, she was in the custody of the appellant. The High Court rightly observed that the prosecution cannot be asked to explain what had happened after the victim girl left with the appellant. It is for the appellant to explain the same, which the appellant failed to do.

Although the extra-judicial confessions of the appellant made before PWs – 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 would be hit by the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, nonetheless, the statement of the appellant leading to discovery of the dead body of the victim girl would be an admissible piece of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

FIR was lodged on 26.08.2004 and the dead body was recovered the following day. Though there is a time gap between the time the two of them were last seen together and the recovery of the dead body, the same would not be fatal to the prosecution case.

Analysis of Evidence by the Court

The court examined the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses. Amzad Ali (PW-1), the father of the deceased, identified the accused-appellant in court. PW-2 (Junu Begum) stated that the appellant had forcefully taken Marjina away in a Tata Sumo. However, she stated that Marjina had told her that she loved the appellant. In her cross-examination, she categorically stated that Marjina had gone with the appellant on her own accord and, therefore, she did not raise any hue and cry.

PW-3 (Minuwara Begum) stated that she had seen the appellant going behind Marjina to the vehicle though she did not see any money in the hands of Marjina. Mother and brother-in-law of the appellant had come to the residence of PW-1 and assured him that his daughter was safe with the appellant and that they would arrange for their marriage. For four days, PW-1 did not lodge any complaint or first information though his daughter had gone missing.

The court noted glaring discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who allegedly had seen the deceased last alive in the company of the appellant on 22.08.2003. The dead body was recovered 5 days thereafter on 27.08.2003, that too after lodging of FIR on 26.08.2003.

The court also discussed Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which deals with information received from the accused which may be proved.

The court analyzed the evidence on record and found it difficult to accept the prosecution case that the dead body of Marjina was recovered from the concealed place near the Pandu railway track at the instance of the appellant. Therefore, Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot come to the aid of the prosecution.

PW-13, the investigating officer, stated that though he had seized the vest with blood stains, he did not send the same to the FSL for examination. He did not make any prayer before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate to get the confessional statements of the accused recorded.

Applicable Legal Principles

The court referred to several cases to highlight the principles related to circumstantial evidence, "last seen together," extra-judicial confessions, and the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. State of Maharashtra: This Court dealt with the limitations of an extra-judicial confession which is one of the instances of circumstantial evidence.

State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran: The circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that the possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out.

Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan: The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself lead to the inference that it was the accused who had committed the crime. There must be something more to establish the nexus between the accused and the crime.

Anjan Kumar Sarma Vs. State of Assam: In a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain.

Pulukuri Kottaya Vs. King-Emperor: The discovery of fact contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act arises by reason of the fact that information given by the accused exhibited his knowledge or mental awareness as to its existence at a particular place.

Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of Maharashtra: Referred to the observations made by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya (supra).

Asar Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: Such a fact need not be self-probatory. The word ‘fact’ contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to ‘actual physical material object.’

Anwar Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh: In a case where direct evidence of eye witness is available, motive loses its importance. But absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favor of the accused.

Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra: In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances.

Nandu Singh Vs. State of M.P.: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance.

Rationale

The Judges provided the following reasoning for the acquittal:

  1. The High Court had rejected the extra-judicial confessions as inadmissible, breaking the chain of circumstantial evidence.
  2. The "last seen together" evidence was weak due to the time gap and inconsistencies in witness statements.
  3. The discovery of the body could not be solely attributed to the appellant's information due to inconsistencies in witness statements.
  4. The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive.
  5. The failure to examine key witnesses (appellant's mother and brother-in-law) weakened the prosecution's case.

Excerpt

As we know, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.

Applying the legal principles culled out from the above decisions to the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it is clear that there was considerable time gap between the time the appellant and the deceased were last seen together alive and recovery of the dead body. Therefore, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that it was the appellant and the appellant alone who had committed the offence.

Applying the law relating to Section 27 of the Evidence Act as can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions, we find that the circumstance of leading to discovery is intrinsically connected with the circumstance of extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant and the other co-accused before PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11. We have already noted that the High Court had rejected the circumstance of extra-judicial confessions as being in-admissible evidence.

But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favor of the accused.

Points to Remember

  1. Circumstantial Evidence: In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence that leads to the inescapable conclusion of the defendant's guilt, excluding all other reasonable hypotheses.
  2. Last Seen Together: The "last seen together" doctrine is relevant only when the time gap between the accused and deceased being together and the discovery of the crime is minimal. A significant time gap weakens this evidence.
  3. Extra-Judicial Confessions: Extra-judicial confessions made in police custody are inadmissible as evidence.
  4. Section 27, Evidence Act: The discovery of a fact based on information from the accused is admissible only if the information directly leads to the discovery and is not connected to inadmissible confessions.
  5. Motive: The absence of a clear motive can weigh in favor of the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
  6. Witness Examination: The failure to examine key witnesses can significantly undermine the prosecution's case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Md. Bani Alam Mazid v. State of Assam underscores the importance of a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials. The court's emphasis on the inadmissibility of extra-judicial confessions made in police custody, the limitations of the "last seen together" doctrine, and the need for a discernible motive reinforces the protection of the accused and highlights the challenges in securing convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more

Unconstitutional Arrest: Vihan Kumar's Freedom Restored, Article 22(1) Violated, Police Fail to Communicate Grounds, Handcuffing in Hospital Condemned

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: VIHAAN KUMAR vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA. Citation: 2025 INSC 162 (Reportable) Case Overview The Supreme Court of India heard the criminal appeal of Vihan Kumar against the State of Haryana, regarding his arrest in connection with FIR No. 121/2023 . The appellant challenged the legality of his arrest, alleging violations of his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India. The court's ruling focused primarily on the non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the appellant, deeming the arrest illegal. Factual Background Vihan Kumar was arrested on June 10, 2024 , in relation to an FIR concerning offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The appellant claimed his arrest occurred around 10:30 am, while the State claimed it was at 6:00 pm. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on June 11, 2024 , at 3:30 pm. Aft...
Read more