The Gauhati High Court has acquitted a man previously sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a minor girl in Assam, ruling that grave suspicion alone cannot serve as a substitute for legal proof in criminal convictions.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury set aside the conviction and ordered the immediate release of the appellant, provided he is not required in any other case. The ruling came as the court evaluated both an appeal filed by the accused and a reference submitted by the state government to confirm the capital sentence.
Flaws in Circumstantial Evidence
In overturning the trial court’s verdict, the High Court highlighted that the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence without any eyewitnesses to the crime. Upon examining the prosecution’s “last seen” theory, the bench found that two key witnesses had only hearsay knowledge and failed to establish that the victim was last seen exclusively in the company of the accused.
The court also discarded an alleged extra-judicial confession attributed to the accused. The bench observed that the statement was made while the accused was already in police custody after officers summoned witnesses to the station. Under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the judges held that such statements cannot be treated as voluntary disclosures made to an independent person.
Absence of Forensic Links
The judgment further underscored a complete lack of physical or forensic material connecting the accused to the crime. Investigators recovered no weapon, discovered no incriminating items belonging to the accused at the scene, and failed to yield any forensic evidence linking him to the murder or sexual assault.
While medical evidence disproved the accused’s statement that the child died accidentally from a stick blow—confirming instead that she died of strangulation—the court held that this contradiction did not automatically prove his guilt. Acknowledging that the circumstances generated strong suspicion, the bench ruled that suspicion cannot replace legal proof and granted the accused the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident in February 2020, when the child went missing on February 26, and her body was recovered the following morning. Following police investigation, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 376A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act, imposing the death penalty.
