A circumstantial-evidence conviction cannot stand unless the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstances.

An unidentified woman’s body, bearing injuries, was found near a stream in Paseriya village on 21 March 2009. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, identified as Mamta Rani Dey alias Reeta Dey, had a troubled relationship with the appellant, Md. Khalil, and charged him under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Sessions Court convicted him and imposed concurrent sentences of life imprisonment under Section 302 and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 201.

On appeal, the High Court considered, among other evidence, a hotel witness’s failure to identify the appellant, evidence concerning his duty records, and the omission to put the alleged motive to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the alleged motive and evidence concerning the appellant’s movements, proved beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the murder and caused the disappearance of evidence.

2. Whether the trial court could rely on the alleged estranged relationship as a circumstance against the appellant when it had not been put to him in his examination under Section 313 CrPC.

The charges were under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, concerning murder and causing disappearance of evidence, respectively.

The Court assessed whether the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence established the appellant’s guilt and treated the failure to put an incriminating circumstance to the accused under Section 313 CrPC as a bar to relying on that circumstance against him.

The hotel owner testified that a person using the name Md. Khalil had stayed at her hotel, but she expressly denied that the appellant in court was that person, leaving the hotel evidence unable to connect him to the deceased’s movements.

The Investigating Officer could not establish where the murder occurred, and the body was found with the deceased’s belongings; the Court considered the trial court’s conclusion about the appellant’s opportunity during gaps in his duty schedule speculative and unsupported by reliable evidence.

Further, because the alleged estrangement was not put to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, it could not be relied on as proof of motive.

On the evidence as a whole, the prosecution had not proved its case.

As the appellant was on bail, it discharged him from the liability of his bail bond; pending interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.