LexMD. BANI ALAM MAZID @ DHAN versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2006 : 2025 INSC 260 Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam (Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011) 24 February 2025 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration In a case where the appellant alongwith a co-accused was alleged to have kidnapped and murdered the minor daughter of PW1, the issues for consideration were: (i) Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence based on which the High Court convicted the Appellant was complete; (ii) Whether the circumstance of last seen together can be made the basis of conviction; (iii) Whether the circumstance of recovery of the dead body following the Appellant’s statement was proof beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant; (iv) Whether motive is an important link in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Headnotes† Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution case of kidnapping and murder based on three circumstances: (a) accused- appellant and victim were last seen together; (b) extrajudicial confession of appellant; and (c) recovery of dead body – None of the circumstances were proved, not to speak of proving the complete chain of circumstances – Conviction by courts below not justified – Penal Code – ss.366(A)/302/201/34: Held: The High Court had erred in discarding the circumstance of extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant before PW Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 on the ground that those confessions were made in the presence of the police and thus would be hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Therefore, the High Court disbelieved one of the three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution as a part of the chain of evidence to prove the Appellant’s guilt – However, the High Court still convicted the Appellant on the strength of the remaining two pieces of circumstantial evidence – Therefore, it could not be said that the * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 2007 Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and that no other inference except the guilt of the accused was possible therefrom – The Appellant therefore was entitled to benefit of doubt, since his guilt was not established beyond all reasonable doubt. [Paras 23-25] Circumstantial Evidence – Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 147 – Discussed: Held: In Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, this Court dealt with the limitations of an extrajudicial confession which is one of the instances of circumstantial evidence – In that context, this Court following the consistent line of judicial precedents held that 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 principle fact can be legally inferred or presumed – The chain must be complete and each fact forming part of the chain must be proved – Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, 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. [Para 22] Murder – Allegations of – Victim, a minor girl – Circumstance of last seen together with accused – Inference of guilt – If can be drawn: Held: In Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715, this Court held that circumstances of last seen together does not by itself lead to the inference that the accused committed the offence – There must be something more than mere non-explanation on the part of the accused to establish nexus between him and the crime – In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755, this Court held that the circumstance of last seen together may normally be considered to find the accused guilty when the time gap between when the accused and deceased were last seen together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that the possibility of any other person being with the deceased is ruled out – However, it cannot be said that evidence of last seen together must be rejected merely due to a time gap – If the prosecution is able to lead evidence making the likelihood of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime 2008 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports impossible, then even with a long duration, last seen together can be considered as part o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.