Conviction based on incomplete circumstantial evidence cannot stand where reasonable alternative hypotheses remain.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the Sessions Judge, Baksa, in Sessions Case No. 59/2019, pursuant to judgment dated 29.05.2023.

The prosecution case was that the appellant’s husband, Durlav Kalita, had gone to her parental home on the night of 04.05.2019 and was later found fatally injured near the homestead of her father.

The appellant and her brother were alleged to have caused his death with a dao and an iron rod.

The deceased had sustained head and other injuries, and the post-mortem doctor opined that death resulted from haemorrhagic shock following head injury.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, but the Investigating Officer died during the pendency of the trial and was not examined.

The appellant denied the prosecution case and explained under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased had been accompanied by two colleagues, who had assaulted him after attempting to forcibly remove her from the house; she stated that she had taken the dao to the police station after the incident.

The appellant’s brother, who was tried as a co-accused, was acquitted by the Trial Court.

Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution formed a complete and conclusive chain proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had murdered her husband under Section 302 IPC?

Whether the alleged seizure of the dao and iron rod, the evidence of PW-7, and the surrounding circumstances reliably connected the appellant with the commission of the offence?

Whether the appellant’s explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. created a reasonable alternative hypothesis consistent with her innocence and entitled her to the benefit of doubt?

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning the offence of murder and the settled principles governing proof by circumstantial evidence.

Relying on Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, the Court held that every incriminating circumstance must be fully established, must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

It further relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which requires the five conditions commonly described as the “panchsheel” of circumstantial evidence: complete establishment of the circumstances; consistency only with guilt; conclusive nature and tendency; exclusion of every other hypothesis; and a complete chain showing that the act was committed by the accused.

The Court also applied Akhilesh Hajam v. State of Bihar, (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 357, holding that recovery of a weapon, particularly where the seizure is doubtful and there is no forensic or serological evidence connecting it with the crime, cannot by itself sustain a conviction.

The Court held that although the deceased’s death, his presence near the appellant’s parental home, and the existence of injuries were established, the prosecution failed to prove the intervening circumstances connecting the appellant to the murder.

The seizure record stated that the dao and iron rod were seized from the appellant’s brother on 04.05.2019, although he was arrested only on 06.05.2019; the prosecution did not explain how the police discovered the body, obtained information about the occurrence, or effected the alleged seizure before the FIR was lodged.

The seizure witnesses merely saw the weapons near the body and did not testify that the weapons were recovered from either accused in their presence.

Further, the weapons were neither sent for forensic or serological examination nor exhibited during trial.

While he claimed to have seen the appellant near the injured deceased, he did not describe witnessing the assault and stated that two youths had threatened him to leave the place.

This circumstance was compatible with the appellant’s Section 313 explanation that the deceased had arrived with two companions and that a quarrel had occurred between them.

The Court therefore found that the prosecution evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that persons other than the appellant had caused the fatal injuries.

Suspicion or probability could not replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

Her release from custody had already been directed by the order dated 23.06.2026.

The Registry was directed to return the Trial Court records along with copies of the relevant orders.