Circumstantial conviction is unsustainable if the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

On June 29, 2013, an FIR was lodged alleging that the appellant, Md. Taher Ali, murdered his mother, Tara Bhanu, with an axe following a domestic quarrel

The Sessions Judge, Udalguri, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC on September 30, 2021, sentencing him to life imprisonment

The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence as the sole purported eyewitness (PW-3) turned hostile during the trial

While medical evidence confirmed the death was homicidal due to head injuries [p.5-6], the investigating officer failed to send the blood-stained axe (Material Exhibit-1) for forensic or fingerprint examination

Furthermore, the appellant’s wife, who was initially accused of instigating the crime, was reported missing following the incident

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC?

2. Whether the existence of an alternative hypothesis regarding the identity of the assailant entitles the appellant to the benefit of doubt?

The court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the punishment for murder

It primarily relied on the "Five Golden Principles" (Panchsheel) of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116

These principles mandate that: (1) the circumstances must be fully established; (2) the facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature; (4) they must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as to show that the act must have been done by the accused

The court analyzed the evidence against the benchmarks set in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. It noted that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of events because the weapon of offence was never forensically linked to the appellant via blood matching or fingerprints

The court identified a material contradiction regarding the seizure of the axe: PW-1 claimed it was seized from the appellant's possession, whereas the IO (PW-10) testified it was found lying beside the body

Most significantly, the court found that the prosecution failed to exclude an "alternative hypothesis." Evidence indicated a quarrel between the appellant and his wife (Tui Bhanu), who disappeared immediately after the murder

In the absence of forensic proof linking the appellant to the weapon, the court reasoned that the possibility of the wife being the assailant could not be ruled out

Consequently, the circumstances did not lead to a "definite inference of guilt" to the exclusion of all other possibilities

The court set aside the judgment and order dated September 30, 2021, and allowed the appeal. The appellant was granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The court directed the immediate release of the appellant from custody