Conviction based on circumstantial evidence cannot stand absent motive, forensic validation of weapons, and complete chain of events.

The three appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar, under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for the murder of Tapash Das

The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence: hearsay testimony that the deceased was last seen with appellant Dibyakanti Paul

the recovery of a dagger and dao based on alleged oral disclosure statements

the seizure of blood-stained clothes

The Trial Court relied heavily on statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and drew an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding the appellants' knowledge of the crime

The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds of an incomplete chain of circumstances and procedural illegalities in the recovery of evidence

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive and "last seen together," to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC?

2. Whether the alleged discovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes complied with the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act?

3. Whether statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are admissible as substantive evidence for conviction?

The court applied the "five golden principles" for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

It invoked Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of information leading to discovery, as interpreted in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor and State of Karnataka v. David Razario, which requires proof of the exact words uttered by the accused

The court applied Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., noting that such statements are inadmissible as substantive evidence per R. Shaji v. State of Kerala

Furthermore, it considered the significance of motive in circumstantial cases as per Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

The High Court found the Trial Court’s findings were based on "surmises and conjectures" rather than evidence

First, the "last seen" theory failed because PWs 3, 4, and 5—the primary witnesses—contradicted the hearsay testimony of the father (PW-7), stating they did not see the deceased leave with the appellant

Second, the court held that Section 27 was not satisfied because the Investigating Officer failed to record or depose the "exact words" of the disclosure statements, and no independent witnesses were present for the first part of the panchnama

Third, the court noted fatal investigative lapses: the weapons and blood-stained clothes were never sent for Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) examination to prove they were human blood or linked to the deceased

Finally, the High Court criticized the Trial Court for treating Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements as exhibited evidence, which is expressly barred by law

The court set aside the judgment dated 25/10/2021, acquitted all three appellants of charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt, and ordered their immediate release