JUDGEMENT REVIEW: SUPREME COURT ACCEPTS APPEAL IN MURDER CASE DUE TO LACK OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Case Title: MD. Bani Alam Mazid Dhan vs. State of Assam
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 260
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of Judgment:  February 24, 2025

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

This case is related to MD. Bani Alam Mazid Dhan, who was convicted by a Sessions Court in Kamrup under Sections 366(A), 302, and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC for kidnapping and murdering a minor girl whose name was Marjina Begum. The state of Assam said that MD.Bani and his partner in crime, Jahangir Ali, kidnapped and murdered this minor girl and took some amount of money from her home, approximately 60,000. Her body was recovered from a railway track at Pandu. The Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for murder and five years of rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping and destroying evidence.The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, and did not change his conviction from life imprisonment but set aside  Section 366(A) IPC. The petitioner then went to the Supreme Court to ask for innocence by saying that the evidence that got him arrested is circumstantial.

 

KEY ISSUES

1. Was the case of the state which was based on circumstantial evidence strong enough to establish guilt and prove that a crime was committed by the plaintiff without proper evidence.
2. Are the last theory and the alleged extra-judicial confession sufficient enough to ask for conviction?
3. The discovery of the victim’s body on the railway track which was based on the appellant’s statements legally admissible?
4. Can the petitioner be given a benefit of the doubt in this case? 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder in India.
2. Section 201 IPC: Evidence mishandling and hiding from investigation.
3. Section 34 IPC – Acts done by several persons is furtherance to a common intention.
4. Section 25 & 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Admissibility of confessions and discovery of facts based on statements in custody.
5. State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran (2007) – Legal standards for the ‘last seen together’ theory.
6. Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King-Emperor (1947) – Scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding discovery of evidence.
7. Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) – Requirement of motive in circumstantial evidence cases.

 

ARGUMENTS

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Evidence is circumstantial: The state of Assam and the investigation only had three primary circumstances which were the last seen theory, the non-judicial confession and the discovery of the body. All of this evidence is circumstantial.
2. No Motive: The petitioner’s side said that the appellant and the victim were in a romantic relationship, making it unlikely that he had a motive to kill her.
3. Testimonies were contradicting each other: Multiple witnesses that were called by the state had provided different testimonies, and they contradicted each other.
4. Last Seen Theory cannot be used: There is a five-day gap between the last time the victim was seen and her body being found, and it is speculation to say that the petitioner was involved in the murder.

 

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The evidence is strong enough to not be circumstantial: The petitioner was the last one to be seen with the victim and there is no explanation about her whereabouts.
2. Last Seen Together was true for this case: The prosecution said that both the partners in crime had knowledge about the crime and what happened to the victim after the kidnapping.
3. Discovery of the Body on basis of what the plaintiff said: The non-judicial confession is inadmissible but the body was discovered only through the information that the plaintiff gave to the investigators and that is why his confession is valid.

 

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the petitioner and declared him innocent. The court very specifically said that the state and the investigators did not create a proper chain of events and that mere suspicion cannot be equated to incarceration. Even though the last seen together theory is a proper consideration it cannot prove that the petitioner is guilty, unless and until there are no other possibilities of what could have happened on that day. There was a 5 day case between the kidnapping and when her body was found which would make it impossible for the petitioner to be responsible for the murder, or him being alone in this crime. Extra-judicial confessions are not accepted in this case since it was made in the presence of the police and the body discovery did not meet standards as the information that led to finding of the body could have been gotten from anywhere. There are proper contradictions between the testimonies and they cannot prove anything regarding the petitioner. There is also no motive regarding the kidnapping and the murder. The Court held that the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the accused since there is no chain of events that is provable.

 

JUDGMENT

1. Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were set aside by the SCI.
2. Extra-judicial confession and the last seen together theory was not accepted due to the time gap.
3. The state and investigators did not establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
4. Appellant acquitted and released unless required in another case.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case also talks about following the proper procedure and finding an unbroken chain of events that is backed by evidence. The judgment does not consider the last seen theory and rejects the extra-judicial confession. They also clearly mentioned that such theories must be used carefully as there is a significant time gap between the chain of events. This verdict is important because it sets a very important precedent on future cases which have circumstantial evidence and to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned due to gaps in investigation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more

than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls

into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer,

best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY TANMAYEE VELLORE RAGHUNANDAN