Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder

In a landmark judgment Supreme Court of India acquitted Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of 16-year-old Marjina Begum in Assam in 2003. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances that ruled out any hypothesis of innocence, emphasizing that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.

Setting aside the conviction, the Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan categorically stated, “When the prosecution fails to prove each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot stand. Guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and every alternative possibility must be ruled out.”

The case stemmed from an FIR filed on August 26, 2003, alleging that the appellant, along with a co-accused, had kidnapped Marjina Begum on August 22, 2003, and that she was later found murdered. The prosecution claimed that the accused had lured the girl away under the pretense of marriage but later killed her and dumped her body near a railway track.

The Sessions Court in Kamrup, Assam, convicted the accused under Sections 366(A) (kidnapping), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction for murder but set aside the charge of kidnapping. The accused then approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

The Supreme Court extensively analyzed the prosecution’s case and found glaring inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence. The judgment reiterated that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires the establishment of an unbroken chain of circumstances that leads to only one conclusion – the guilt of the accused.

“The fundamental rule in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that every link in the chain must be proved. If even one link is missing, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt,” the Court emphasized.

The three main circumstances relied upon by the prosecution – ‘last seen together,’ an extra-judicial confession, and a disclosure statement allegedly leading to the discovery of the dead body – were all found to be insufficient or unreliable.

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of PW-2, Junu Begum, a friend of the victim, who initially stated that the appellant had forcibly taken Marjina away in a Tata Sumo vehicle. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that Marjina went with the accused voluntarily and without coercion.

The Court noted, “When the prosecution’s own witness states that the deceased willingly accompanied the accused, the inference of a forcible act cannot be drawn. The burden then shifts back to the prosecution to prove that the accused had a criminal intent, which it failed to do.”

The Court also highlighted the five-day gap between the last sighting of the victim and the discovery of her body, ruling that this significantly weakened the evidentiary value of the ‘last seen together’ theory. Referring to the decision in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755, the Court reiterated, “The time gap between the accused and the deceased being last seen together and the recovery of the dead body must be so small that no other person could have intervened. A prolonged gap weakens the prosecution’s case.”

The prosecution sought to rely on alleged confessions made by the accused in police custody to multiple witnesses. However, the Supreme Court held that these confessions were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating, “Any confession made in police custody, unless recorded before a magistrate, is inadmissible. The High Court rightly discarded this evidence. Once an essential link in the chain of circumstances is broken, the remaining evidence cannot sustain a conviction.”

The prosecution also claimed that the accused’s statement led to the discovery of the victim’s body, attempting to invoke Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, the Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies in this claim.

The Court noted, “PW-6, the scribe of the FIR, categorically stated that the accused was in jail at the time the body was discovered. This directly contradicts the claim that the accused led the police to the body.”

Furthermore, the police failed to send the allegedly recovered vest with bloodstains for forensic examination, which could have corroborated the prosecution’s case. The Court remarked, “When forensic evidence that could establish guilt is not secured or examined, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”

The defense pointed out that the appellant and the deceased were in a romantic relationship, and the accused’s family had even assured the victim’s parents that they would arrange the marriage. The prosecution failed to establish any motive for the accused to commit the murder.

The Court cited Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166, stating, “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain. The absence of a clear motive weakens the prosecution’s case considerably.”

After carefully analyzing the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court categorically stated, “None of the circumstances put forth by the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The broken chain of evidence cannot sustain a conviction.”

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the convictions of both the Sessions Court and the Gauhati High Court. The judgment concluded, “The appellant is acquitted of all charges and shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in any other case.”

This judgment reinforces fundamental principles of criminal law, making it clear that mere suspicion, however strong, is not enough for conviction. The ruling highlights several crucial aspects of criminal trials:

“The ‘last seen together’ theory is not conclusive proof of guilt unless the prosecution establishes a direct link between the accused and the crime. Extra-judicial confessions made in police custody are inadmissible, and a disclosure statement must be independently corroborated. Most importantly, when the prosecution fails to prove a complete chain of circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

By upholding the principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, this ruling sets a critical precedent for cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence.

Date of decision: 24/02/2025