Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs. State of Assam
Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011; Judgment Date: February 24, 2025; (2025 INSC 260)
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan
Background: The appellant was convicted under Sections 366(A), 302, and 201 read with 34 IPC for kidnapping and murdering a minor girl, Marjina Begum (16 years). He was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, along with rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Sections 366(A) and 201 IPC. His appeal to the Gauhati High Court was dismissed in 2010, affirming the conviction under Sections 302/201 IPC while setting aside the conviction under Section 366(A) IPC.
Prosecution Case: On August 22, 2003, the appellant allegedly kidnapped Marjina along with co-accused Jahangir Ali. Marjina’s father filed an FIR on August 26, 2003, stating that she was missing along with ₹60,000 in cash. The dead body was recovered on August 27, 2003 near a railway track. The trial court convicted both accused based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen together, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused.
Defense Arguments: The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
The alleged “last seen together” theory was weak—PW-2 admitted that the victim voluntarily went with the appellant. Extra-judicial confessions were inadmissible as they were made in police custody, violating Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The “leading to discovery” theory under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was unreliable because: The appellant was not present at the recovery site.
The prosecution failed to link the recovered blood-stained vest to the victim. Motive was absent—Marjina and the appellant were in a relationship, and his family had assured marriage.
Supreme Court’s Findings:
- Circumstantial Evidence Not Conclusive: The chain of circumstantial evidence was broken as extra-judicial confessions were discarded.
- “Last seen together” was not reliable due to the time gap (August 22 to August 27). No forensic evidence linked the accused to the murder.
- Leading to Discovery Invalid: Contradictions in witness statements regarding the dead body’s recovery.
- Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not satisfied as the recovery was not conclusively linked to the appellant.
- No Motive Established: The accused had no reason to kill the victim. The absence of motive further weakened the prosecution case.
Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentences imposed by the High Court and Sessions Court were set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released immediately, unless required in another case.
Key Takeaways: Conviction in a circumstantial evidence case must be based on a complete chain of evidence.Extra-judicial confessions made in police custody are inadmissible.Last seen theory is unreliable if there is a significant time gap.Motive plays a crucial role in cases based on circumstantial evidence.This judgment reinforces strict evidentiary standards in criminal trials based on circumstantial evidence.
