Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam on 26 February, 2026
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010092132024
2026:GAU-AS:2975-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./145/2024
MD. RAFIK ALI
S/O LATE FAZUR ALI @ FECHA,
VILL.- MADHUPUR, P.S.- BARAMA, DIST.- BAKSA, B.T.A.D. (ASSAM).
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR. A BORUA,MS. P BHATTACHARYA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : Crl.A./104/2024
MD. JEHARUL ALI
S/O RAFIK ALI
VILL.- MADHAPUR
P.O.- MADHAPUR
P.S.- BARAMA
DIST.- BAKSA
ASSAM
PIN- 781346.
Page No.# 2/18
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE P.P.
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR Z KAMAR
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
-B E F O R E –
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Appellant (s) : Mr. T J Mahanta, Ms. P Bhattacharya, Mr.
A Borua, Mr. T Gogoi, Advocates in Crl.A.
No. 145/2024.
Mr. Z Kamar, Mr. I H Saikia, Mr. T
Chakraborty, Mr. D Choudhury, Mr. J
Das, Mr. B Borah, Mr. K Kalita, Mr. K
Kashyap, Mr. K K Sarma, advocates in
Crl. A. No. 104/2024.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R R Kaushik, APP for the State.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 23.02.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.02.2026
Page No.# 3/18
Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment ? : N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J
Heard Mr. T J Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. T Gogoi,
learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2024 and Mr. I H
Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2024. Also
heard Mr. R R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the
State.
2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated
07.03.2024 and sentence dated 13.03.2024 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Baksa, Mushalpur in Sessions Case No.82/2022, whereby the accused
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2024, namely, Md. Rafik Ali and co-
accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2024, namely, Md. Jeharul Ali
were convicted under Sections 302/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each, in default of payment of fine, to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six months each under Sections
Page No.# 4/18
302/34 of the IPC and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3
years each with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default, simple imprisonment
for another 3 months under Sections 365/34 of the IPC. Both these appeals are
taken up together for disposal.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-1 lodged an FIR alleging,
inter-alia, that on 28.03.2020 at about 10:00 PM the accused/appellant, Md.
Rafik Ali along with co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali called her
husband/deceased out of the house for having some talk and since then, her
husband having not returned back, on the following day morning at about 9:00
AM, she called the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali to enquire about the
whereabouts of her husband. It is further alleged that the accused/appellant,
Md. Rafik Ali replied that the co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali knows about
her husband and when she approached the co-accused/appellant, Jeherul Ali,
he replied that it is the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali who knows about her
husband/deceased. Accordingly, she suspected that they had killed her husband
in a pre-planned manner. Upon receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of
the jurisdictional police station registered the FIR as Barama P.S. Case No.
31/2020 under Sections 120B/365/302/34 IPC. Accordingly, the investigating
officer proceeded to investigate the matter by recording the statement of the
informant and upon coming to learn that the body of the husband/deceased
was found to be floating in a nearby pond, visited the place of occurrence,
recorded the statements of the witnesses, recovered the dead body, performed
inquest, prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence as well as the
residence of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination,
collected the same and arrested the accused appellants and upon completion of
the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused appellants
Page No.# 5/18
under Sections 120B/365/302/34 of the IPC.
4. Thereafter, the Chief Jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the
jurisdictional Sessions Court and upon receipt of the records, Sessions Case No.
82/2022 was registered. The Trial Court thereafter framed charges under
Sections 365/302/34 of the IPC against the accused appellants and upon
reading over and explaining the same to the accused appellants, they
individually pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including the
informant, medical officer and the investigating officer. Upon completion of the
prosecution evidence, all the incriminating circumstances were put to the
accused appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein they generally
denied all the circumstances and declined to adduce defense evidence. The Trial
Court after hearing the parties, was pleased to return the verdict of guilt against
the accused appellants and convicted and sentenced them thereof. Hence, the
present criminal appeals.
6. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused/appellant
in Criminal Appeal No. 145/2024, submits that the Trial Court having convicted
the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali solely on the basis of the last seen theory,
committed gross error in law, inasmuch as conviction cannot be made solely on
the basis of last seen theory. The prosecution must prove the guilt of an
accused beyond reasonable doubt and the last seen theory comes into play
when the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small
that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the
crime becomes impossible. He accordingly, submits that in the instant case, the
Page No.# 6/18
body of the deceased having been recovered after almost two days since the
accused appellants were allegedly seen to have taken away the deceased
husband from his house by PW-1, the last seen, together, therefore by itself
would not be sufficient and the chain of circumstances cannot be said to be
complete to bring home the guilt of the accused appellants. In support of the
aforesaid, he relies upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of
Padman Bibhar -Vs- State of Odisha reported in (2025) LiveLaw SC
613 and Manoj @ Munna -Vs- State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal
Appeal No. 1129/2013. In support of his further contention that mere non-
explanation on the part of the accused appellants by itself also cannot infer the
guilt of the accused appellants, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Kanhaiya Lal -Vs- State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 4
SCC 715. He further submits that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive
is relevant and in the present case, the prosecution having miserably failed to
establish any motive whatsoever, the same weighs in favor of the accused
appellants. In support of the above, he relies upon the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Nandu Singh -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh (Now
Chhattisgarh) reported in (2022) 19 SCC 301.
7. Mr. I H Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the co-accused/appellant,
Md. Jeherul Ali in Criminal Appeal No. 104/2024 by adopting the arguments of
Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel, relies upon the following decisions –
i) Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy & Anr. -Vs- State of Andhra
Pradesh, reported in (2006) AIR SC 1656.
ii) State of Uttar Pradesh -Vs- Satish, reported in (2005) AIR SC
1000.
Page No.# 7/18
iii) Nazim & Ors. -Vs- State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2025)
AIR SC 4801
iv) Hatti Singh -Vs- State of Haryana, reported in (2007) 12 SCC
471.
v) State (Delhi Administration) -Vs- Gulzarilal Tandon, reported
in (1979) AIR SC 1382.
vi) Nagamma Nagarathna & Ors. -Vs- State of Karnataka,
reported in (2025) AIR SC 4695.
vii) Naresh Kumar -Vs- State of Maharastra, reported in (1980)
AIR SC 1168.
viii) Vinod Kumar -Vs- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in
(2025) AIR SC 943.
ix) Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan & Ors. -Vs- State of Gujarat,
reported in (2020) AIR SC 180.
x) Laxman Prasad @ Laxman -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in (2023) 6 SCC 399.
xi) Arun Sarkar -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
(2024) AIR SC 1920
xii) Vaibhav -Vs- State of Maharastra, reported in (2025) AIR SC
2996.
xiii) State of Chattisgarh Vs- Ashok Bhoi Etc., reported in (2025)
Legal Eagle SC 260.
xiv) Dasari Siva Prasad Reddy -Vs- Public Prosecutor, High
Court of A.P. reported in (2004) 11 SCC 282.
xv) Rat Chand Bahadur Magar -Vs- State of Assam, in Criminal
Appeal (J) No. 106/2011.
Page No.# 8/18
xvi) Padman Bibhar -Vs- State of Odisha, reported in (2025)
LiveLaw SC 613 and
xvii) Kamru Bhumij -Vs- State of Assam, in Criminal Appeal No.
6/2021.
8. Per contra, Mr. R R Kaushik, learned APP for the State, submits that it is
evident from the post-mortem report and the testimony of the medical officer
who conducted the post-mortem examination that the deceased died almost
30-40 hours since 30.03.2020, i.e., the date of his post-mortem examination.
Hence, the time gap between the accused appellants having last seen by the
PW-1 taking her husband out of their house and his death thereafter being in
short proximity, the last seen theory assumes significance in the context of the
present case. He further submits that the same is an additional link to the other
corroborating incriminating circumstances. He further submits that all the
incriminating circumstances brought in through the depositions and testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses together complete the chain and the same having
been fully established, the guilt of the accused appellants is proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
9. We have given our prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by
the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the material
available on record. We have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.
10. The evidence of PW-1, the informant and wife of the deceased, is to the
effect that on 28.03.2020, the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali came to their
house at about 9:00 PM and had dinner with them. Thereafter, at about 10:00
PM, he again came to their house along with the co-accused/appellant, Md.
Jeherul Ali and, by calling her husband to discuss something, took him away
Page No.# 9/18
with them, whereafter she went to sleep. She further deposed that when her
husband did not return home during the night, she, upon waking up the
following morning, at about 8:30-9:00 AM, telephoned the accused/appellant,
Md. Rafik Ali to enquire about her husband. However, he informed her that it
was the co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali who knew about him. She further
stated that although she thereafter went to the house of the accused/appellant,
Md. Rafik Ali, he reiterated that it was the co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali
who knew about her husband. She then proceeded to the house of the co-
accused/appellant, Jeherul Ali, who, on being asked, replied to the contrary that
it was the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali who knew about her husband. Upon
both the accused appellants blaming each other, she became suspicious and
approached the Gaon Burah (PW-11), who advised her to inform the police.
Accordingly, she lodged the FIR on 29.03.2020. On 30.03.2020, the dead body
of her husband was recovered from a pond at Murmela, and after conducting
the post-mortem examination, the body was handed over to the family for
performing the last rites. She further deposed that upon seeing the body of her
husband, she noticed injuries on his head, face and hands. During cross-
examination, she clarified that she suspected the accused appellants to have
killed her husband, as they had taken him away on the night of the incident,
after which he went missing and was subsequently found dead in the pond. The
testimony of PW-1 remains wholly unshaken.
11. The evidence of PW-2, who is the brother of the deceased, is to the
effect that on 29.03.2020, PW-1 informed him that on the previous night at
about 9:00 PM, the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali came to their house and
had dinner with them. Thereafter, he, along with the co-accused/appellant,
Jeherul Ali, again came to their house and took away the deceased husband on
Page No.# 10/18
the pretext that they had to discuss something. PW-2 further deposed that
when they asked the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali, he told them that it was
the co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali who knew about the deceased, and
when they went to the house of the co-accused/appellant, Jeherul Ali, he, on
the contrary, stated that it was the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali who knew
about the whereabouts of the deceased. Consequently, they approached PW-11,
who advised them to lodge the FIR, whereupon PW-1 lodged the same. He
further deposed that on 30.03.2020, after the body of the deceased was
recovered, he noticed injuries on the backside of the head, face, hands, etc.
During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not
stated before the Investigating Officer that the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali
was called to their house for enquiring about the deceased.
12. The evidence of PW-3 (brother-in-law), PW-4 (brother), PW-5 (uncle),
PW-6 (father), and PW-12 (cousin) corroborates the prosecution version to the
effect that PW-1 informed them that initially the accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali
had come to their house and had dinner with them and thereafter came back
along with co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali and took away the deceased
husband. However, the deceased did not return home that night and upon the
accused/appellants being questioned on the following morning regarding the
whereabouts of the deceased husband, they blamed each other. Nothing has
been elicited in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses to discredit
their evidence, which thus stands unshaken.
13. The evidence of PW-8, a co-villager, is to the effect that he had seen the
dead body floating in a pond and, upon informing the same to PW-11, the police
arrived. PW-9, the brother of PW-8, corroborated his testimony with regard to
the discovery of the dead body of the deceased husband. During cross-
Page No.# 11/18
examination, PW-8 clarified that the dead body was not decomposed. However,
cross-examination was declined in respect of PW-9. PW-11, the village
headman of the deceased, further corroborated the testimony of PW-8.
14. The evidence of PW-10, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased husband
and resides with her husband in another house in the same compound, is to the
effect that on the date of the incident, at about 8:00-9:00 PM, the
accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali came to their house and had a conversation
with the deceased husband and thereafter had dinner together in the house of
the deceased, during which time she was also present. She further deposed that
on the following morning PW-1 informed her that on the previous night the
accused/appellant, Md. Rafik Ali had once again come back and taken her
husband from the house and thereafter he did not return home. She also
corroborated the prosecution version to the effect that when the
accused/appellants were questioned regarding the whereabouts of the
deceased, they passed the responsibility onto each other. During cross-
examination, she clarified that there was no quarrel or prior enmity between the
deceased and the accused/appellants. The surrounding circumstances spoken to
by PW-10 fully corroborate the testimony of PW-1, and the said evidence having
remained unshaken, the testimony of PW-1 becomes wholly believable.
15. The evidence of PW-7, the Medical Officer who conducted the post-
mortem examination on the deceased, is to the effect that upon examination he
found injuries on the face, back, and head and opined that the deceased had
been assaulted from behind on the face, and that death was caused due to both
homicidal injury and drowning. He further opined that death had occurred
approximately 30-40 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The post-
mortem report, Exhibit-P2, substantiate the said findings. Relevant findings
Page No.# 12/18
recorded therein reads as under–
“I. External appearance: Partly decomposed Wounds
Injury mark over face back of head back side of body
right upper extremity (including cut mark)
Bruise- No bruise Mark of ligature No mark of ligature
II. Cranium and Spinal Canal:
Scalp, skull and vertebrae A cut mark (5 mm) over back
of head. Membrane-Healthy Brain and Spinal cord
Healthy
III. Thorax Wall ribs and cartilages Injury mark (cut
mark) over back of thorax. Pleurae Healthy Larynx and
trachea Water present. Right lung Water present, Left
Lung. Water present. Pericardium healthy Heart
healthy, Vessels healthy.
IV. Abdomen Walls Injury mark (cut mark) over back,
Peritonium healthy Mouth, pharynx and oesophagus
water present in oesophagus, Stomach and its contents.
Water present, Small intestine and its contents Water
present Large intestine and its contents, Liver: healthy,
Spleen: healthy, Kidneys Healthy. Bladder healthy.
Organs of generation, external and interi all are healthy.
V. Muscles, bones and joints Injury-Injury mark
(including cut mark) present over face and back.
Disease or deformity. Fracture and dislocation Not
present.
Opinion: The person was assaulted on the face and
from the back and put in a pond Death was due to both
homicidal injury and drowning It occurred 30-40 hours
before post mortem.”
Page No.# 13/18
The testimony of the Medical Officer has remained wholly unshaken and
uncontroverted.
16. The evidence of PW-13, the Investigating Officer, is to the effect that
upon registration of the FIR, he investigated the case, recovered the dead body
of the deceased, recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the sketch
map, and conducted the inquest over the body. Upon his transfer, he handed
over the case diary to the then Officer-in-Charge, whereafter his successor
completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the
accused/appellants. He further proved and exhibited the sketch maps of the
residence of the deceased as well as the place from which the body of the
deceased was recovered, the inquest report, the post-mortem report, and other
connected documents.
17. What emerges from the evidence on record is that the accused/appellant,
Md. Rafik Ali had dinner at the house of the deceased in the presence of PW-1
and PW-10. After leaving, he returned once again along with co-
accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali and took the deceased away on the pretext
of discussing certain matters. The deceased did not return home thereafter. On
enquiry made the following morning, both the accused/appellants attempted to
shift responsibility onto each other. The version of PW-1 stands corroborated by
the testimonies of PWs-2 and 10, as also by PWs-3, 4, 5, 6 and 12, who support
the surrounding circumstances.
18. From the sketch map, it is evident that PW-1 and PW-10 reside within the
same compound, though in separate households. The contention of the
appellants that PW-10 did not depose about having seen the accused/appellant,
Md. Rafik Ali returning with co-accused/appellant, Md. Jeherul Ali after dinner,
does not render the testimony of PW-1 unreliable. The evidence clearly
Page No.# 14/18
establishes that PW-10 was present in the house of the deceased only at the
time of dinner. In these circumstances, the absence of her testimony regarding
the subsequent movement of the accused/appellants does not detract from the
credibility of PW-1, whose evidence remains consistent and cogent.
19. The medical evidence lends strong corroboration to the ocular and
circumstantial evidence. The post-mortem report reveals injuries on the face,
hand and head of the deceased. The doctor has opined that the injuries were
ante-mortem and that the deceased was assaulted prior to drowning. The death
was homicidal in nature. The opinion regarding the time since death establishes
close proximity between the time when the deceased was last seen in the
company of the accused/appellants and the time of death.
20. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The legal position
governing such cases is well settled. Conviction can be sustained only when the
circumstances proved form a complete and unbroken chain, leading to no
conclusion other than the guilt of the accused. It is equally settled that the
circumstance of “last seen together” by itself is insufficient to sustain a
conviction. However, when established and corroborated by other incriminating
circumstances, it constitutes a vital link in the chain.
21. In Padman Bibhar (Supra), the Apex Court reiterated that suspicion,
however strong, cannot substitute proof and that the “last seen together”
circumstance, without corroboration, is a weak form of evidence. In
Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2016) 12
SCC 251 and Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in (2014) 12 SCC 279 it was held that the doctrine applies only
when the time gap between the accused and the deceased being last seen
Page No.# 15/18together and the discovery of death is so proximate that the possibility of third-
party intervention stands excluded. Even in such cases, the prosecution must
establish a complete chain of circumstances.
22. In Manoj @ Munna (Supra), the Apex Court clarified that circumstantial
evidence can form the basis of conviction only when it is wholly inconsistent
with the innocence of the accused and consistent only with his guilt. The Apex
Court further explained that once proximity between the “last seen together”
circumstance and the death is established, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act becomes relevant.
23. The scope of Section 106 of the Evidence Act has been explained in
Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha, reported in (2023) 11 SCC
813 and Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 15 SCC 48
wherein it was held that the provision does not dilute the primary burden of the
prosecution but casts an obligation on the accused to explain facts especially
within his knowledge, once the prosecution establishes a prima facie chain of
circumstances. Failure to offer a plausible explanation furnishes an additional
incriminating link. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 it was further held that false or evasive
answers to incriminating circumstances may themselves form such additional
links.
24. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the
prosecution has proved that the accused/appellant was last seen with the
deceased in close proximity to the time of death. PW-1’s testimony in this regard
is natural and trustworthy and finds corroboration from PW-10 and other
prosecution witnesses.
Page No.# 16/18
That apart, the conduct of the accused/appellants also assumes relevance
under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, which renders the conduct of a
party, both previous and subsequent to the occurrence, admissible insofar as it
influences or is influenced by the facts in issue. The Apex Court has consistently
held that the behaviour of an accused, when examined in conjunction with other
proved circumstances, can furnish a relevant incriminating link. In the present
case, the conduct of the accused/appellants in taking the deceased away late at
night, their evasive and inconsistent responses when questioned the following
morning, and their failure to offer any plausible explanation as to how they
parted company with the deceased, are not neutral acts. When read alongside
the proximity of the “last seen together” circumstance, the medical evidence
establishing homicidal death, and the recovery of the body shortly thereafter,
such conduct acquires probative value and reinforces the chain of circumstantial
evidence. While conduct alone cannot found a conviction, under Section 8 it
becomes a relevant circumstance which, in the present case, lends assurance to
the prosecution version.
25. Further, the recovery of the body from the pond stands proved through
the evidence of PWs-11 and 12. The medical evidence conclusively establishes
that the deceased was assaulted prior to drowning and that the death occurred
within a short span of time after the deceased was taken away by the
accused/appellants. In such circumstances also, the failure of the
accused/appellants to offer any plausible explanation as to how and when they
parted company with the deceased assumes decisive significance and furnishes
an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
26. Though motive assumes importance in cases based on circumstantial
evidence, its absence is not fatal where the chain of circumstances is otherwise
Page No.# 17/18
complete. The principles governing circumstantial evidence, namely, (i) that
chain of evidence is complete; (ii) circumstances relied upon by prosecution
should be conclusive in nature; (iii) fact established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused; (iv) circumstances relied upon
should only be consistent with the guilt of the accused; and (v) circumstances
relied upon should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, as reiterated in Gamparai Hrudayaraju v. State of A.P., reported
in (2009) 13 SCC 740 and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of
M.P., reported in (1952) 2 SCC 71 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, stand fully satisfied
in the present case. The circumstances proved are conclusive in nature, form a
complete chain and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
27. It is worthwhile to mention that the decisions relied upon by the
accused/appellants do not advance their cases and are clearly distinguishable on
facts. In the cases cited, the prosecution had rested almost entirely on the
solitary circumstance of “last seen together”, either without establishing
proximity of time between the last seen circumstance and the death, or without
any corroborative medical, conduct-based or surrounding circumstances
completing the chain of evidence. In several of those cases, the Apex Court
found gaps in the prosecution story, unexplained delays, absence of credible
corroboration, or failure to exclude the possibility of third-party intervention. In
contradistinction, in the present case, the circumstance of “last seen together” is
not an isolated factor but is firmly supported by consistent ocular evidence,
proximate medical opinion establishing homicidal death, recovery of the body
soon thereafter, and the conduct of the accused/appellants in failing to offer any
plausible explanation for facts especially within their knowledge. The ratio of the
Page No.# 18/18
decisions relied upon by the accused/appellants, therefore, being context-
specific, does not dilute the prosecution case herein, where the chain of
circumstances stands complete and unbroken.
28. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court. The convictions of the accused/appellants are
founded on a legally sustainable appreciation of evidence and warrant no
interference. These appeals, being devoid of merit, are accordingly dismissed.
29. Send back the TCR.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Pranab Digitally signed by
Kumar Pranab Kumar Deka
Date: 2026.02.26
Deka 14:39:58 +05'30'