In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, has emphasized that the term “fact” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to tangible objects but also extends to the accused’s knowledge. The verdict was delivered in Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs. State of Assam, wherein the appellant was acquitted due to gaps in the circumstantial evidence.
Case Background
The case stems from an incident on August 22, 2003, when a minor girl, Marjina Begum (16), was allegedly abducted by the appellant, Md. Bani Alam Mazid, along with co-accused Jahangir Ali. Her father, Amzad Ali, lodged a complaint on August 26, 2003, at Hajo Police Station, Assam. The victim was later found dead near the Pandu railway tracks on August 27, 2003. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 366(A) (kidnapping), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction for murder and disappearance of evidence while acquitting him of the kidnapping charge.
Important Legal Issues
The Supreme Court primarily examined three key issues:
The reliability of the last-seen-together theory in cases with a significant time gap.
The admissibility of extra-judicial confessions made in police presence.
The interpretation of “fact” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, particularly whether it includes only physical objects or also extends to the accused’s knowledge.
Court’s Observations
One of the critical observations by the Supreme Court pertained to the interpretation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the admissibility of confessional statements leading to the discovery of evidence. The Court stated:
“The discovery of a fact contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act arises by reason of the fact that information given by the accused exhibits his knowledge or mental awareness as to its existence at a particular place.”
The judgment further reinforced the principle set in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor (1947), where the Privy Council held that Section 27 is an exception to the bar on confessions made in police custody, permitting only that portion of the statement which leads to a discovery.
On the issue of last-seen evidence, the Court reiterated:
“The time gap between the accused persons last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the crime is a crucial factor. The longer the gap, the weaker the evidentiary value of the last-seen theory.”
Regarding extra-judicial confessions, the Court ruled:
“An extra-judicial confession, particularly one made in the presence of police, must be treated with caution. It is inadmissible if obtained under coercion or duress.”
Considering the gaps in circumstantial evidence, the Court emphasized:
“In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events leading to the accused. Any missing link in this chain creates reasonable doubt.”
Court’s Decision
Considering the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the Supreme Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted the prosecution’s failure to recover the alleged Rs. 60,000 cash taken by the victim and its inability to establish a motive, given that the appellant and the victim were in a romantic relationship and intended to marry.
“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. The absence of a clear motive in this case weighs in favor of the accused.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court and Sessions Court judgments, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and ordering his immediate release.
Case Details
Case Title: Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs. State of Assam
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of 2011
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
