Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011
Date of Judgment: 24th February 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Appellant: Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan
Respondent: State of Assam
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Ajim H. Laskar
Counsel for Respondent: State Counsel
Acts & Sections Involved: Sections 366(A), 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Cited Judgments:
Nandu Singh v. State of M.P. (2022 SCC Online SC 1454)
Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 147)
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755
Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715
Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam (2017) 14 SCC 359
Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67)
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 1 SCC 253
Asar Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 12 SCC 253
Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166
Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the abduction and subsequent murder of a minor girl, Marjina Begum. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, had kidnapped and later murdered the victim. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 366(A), 302, and 201 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed the appeal but set aside the conviction under Section 366(A) IPC. The appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the conviction of the appellant based on circumstantial evidence was legally sustainable.
Whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant.
Whether the reliance on the ‘last seen together’ doctrine and ‘leading to discovery’ evidence was justified.
Whether the prosecution’s failure to establish motive weakened the case against the appellant.
Observations of the Supreme Court
A. Circumstantial Evidence and Its Legal Standards
The Court emphasized the well-established principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain that points exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Quoting from Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 147):
“Inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.”
The Court noted that in the present case, the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence was flawed, as one of the three key circumstances (extra-judicial confession) had already been disbelieved by the High Court.
B. Last Seen Together Doctrine
The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-2, who claimed to have last seen the appellant with the deceased. However, the Court found several inconsistencies:
PW-2 stated that Marjina voluntarily accompanied the appellant.
The gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the dead body (five days) was significant.
The testimony of PW-3 was ambiguous regarding Marjina’s presence with the appellant.
Referring to State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755, the Court reiterated:
“Last seen together evidence is relevant only if the time gap between the accused and deceased being seen together and the discovery of the crime is so small that no third party intervention is possible.”
C.Leading to Discovery Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
The prosecution argued that the appellant led the police to the discovery of the dead body. However, the Court found:
Multiple witnesses (PWs 5-11) gave inconsistent statements about the recovery process.
PW-6 (scribe) contradicted himself, claiming the appellant was in jail at the time of discovery.
No forensic examination was conducted on the seized vest to link it to the crime.
The Court relied on Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) and Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 1 SCC 253 to clarify that only “information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible” and that mere production of an object does not establish guilt.
D. Lack of Motive as a Weak Link in the Prosecution Case
The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the appellant to commit murder. It cited Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166:
“While motive is not essential in cases with direct evidence, it plays a crucial role in cases based on circumstantial evidence.”
Here, the absence of motive further weakened the prosecution’s case.
E. Non-Examination of Key Witnesses
The Court criticized the prosecution for failing to examine two crucial witnesses—Aklima Bibi (appellant’s mother) and Farid Ali (appellant’s brother-in-law)—who allegedly assured the victim’s family about Marjina’s safety. Their testimony could have provided clarity regarding Marjina’s whereabouts before her death.
Key Takeaways
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain: Courts will not convict based on gaps in evidence or broken links in the circumstantial chain.
‘Last seen together’ doctrine has limitations: A significant time gap weakens its probative value unless the prosecution eliminates third-party intervention.
Section 27 Evidence must be scrutinized carefully: The discovery must directly flow from the accused’s disclosure and must not be tainted by prior police knowledge.
Motive strengthens circumstantial cases: In its absence, courts will be more cautious in upholding convictions.
Failure to examine material witnesses can be fatal to the prosecution: Key witnesses who could clarify facts must be examined to ensure a fair trial.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the principle that no conviction should be based on weak or inconsistent evidence. It serves as a crucial reminder for legal practitioners to ensure that circumstantial cases are backed by solid, corroborative evidence that withstands judicial scrutiny.
コメント