Motive Assumes Great Significance In A Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Man

The Supreme Court while acquitting a man, reiterated that the motive assumes great significance in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court by which his Appeal was dismissed.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “This Court in Nandu Singh (supra) summed up the legal position that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and that in its absence, the case of the prosecution has to be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.”

The Bench also reiterated that in a case where direct evidence of eye witness is available, motive loses its importance; but absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused.

Advocate Ajim H. Laskar appeared for the Appellant/Accused while AOR Shuvodeep Roy appeared for the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

The Appellant-accused was convicted under Sections 366(A), 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- with a default stipulation for the offence under Section 366(A) IPC. As per the prosecution case, in 2003, the informant lodged an FIR stating that the accused along with the co-accused had kidnapped his minor daughter aged 16 years. He alleged that his daughter had taken away Rs. 60,000/- in cash from his house and on a search, she could not be traced out. It was further stated that the accused’s mother and accused’s elder sister’s husband came and told the informant that the accused had kidnapped his daughter and had kept her at Mukalmuwa with the intention of marrying her.

It was also stated that the said two persons had assured him that their marriage would be arranged and therefore, requested him and his family members not to lodge any Complaint before the Police. However, as there was no trace of the missing girl for about 4 days, the FIR was lodged. Thereafter, the accused persons were arrested and during the investigation, the dead body of the victim (informant’s daughter) was found. The Sessions Judge (Trial Court) convicted both the accused persons. Being aggrieved, they approached the High Court which set aside their conviction under Section 366(A) IPC but affirmed the same under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of IPC. Challenging this, the accused was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “Applying the law relating to Section 27 of the Evidence Act as can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions, we find that the circumstance of leading to discovery is intrinsically connected with the circumstance of extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant and the other co-accused before PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW- 8, PW-10 and PW-11.”

The Court said that it is difficult to accept the prosecution case that the dead body of the victim was recovered from the concealed place near the Pandu railway track at the instance of the Appellant and, therefore, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) cannot come to the aid of the prosecution.

“Viewed in the above context, the circumstance of leading to discovery cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as against the appellant. If that be the position, not only the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete, all the circumstances put forth by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant cannot be accepted as having been proved as valid pieces of evidence. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be given the benefit of doubt and is entitled to an acquittal on this count”, it further observed.

The Court also noted that both the mother and brother-in-law of the Appellant knew the whereabouts of the deceased girl and therefore, they were material witnesses. It added that the non-examination of such material witness has dented the prosecution case.

“It has come on record that the appellant and the deceased were in love. Mother of the appellant along with his brother-in-law had told PW-1, father of the deceased, that they would arrange the marriage of the two. Therefore there could not have been any motive for the appellant to cause the death of Marjina. Postmortem report has also ruled out recent sexual activity of the deceased. This coupled with the fact that there is no recovery of cash allegedly taken away by the deceased from her residence makes the prosecution narrative all the more suspect”, it said.

The Court reiterated that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. It, therefore, concluded that none of the circumstances put forth by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused can be said to have been proved, not to speak of proving the complete chain of circumstances, to dispel any hypothesis of his innocence.

“When the prosecution failed to prove each of the circumstances against the appellant, the courts below were not justified in convicting the appellant”, it added.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the High Court’s Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 260)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Abhijit Sengupta and Advocate Ajim H. Laskar.

Respondent: AOR Shuvodeep Roy, Advocates Saurabh Tripathi, and Deepayan Dutta.

Click here to read/download the Judgment