Gauhati High Court
Sahabuddin Alom And 2 Ors vs The State Of Assam on 20 May, 2026
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/20
GAHC010115322025
2026:GAU-AS:7015-
DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./207/2025
SAHABUDDIN ALOM AND 2 ORS
S/O MD. ISAMUL, R/O VILL. BISANPUR, WARD NO 4, P.O. DEVPURA, P.S.
NAWKOTHI, DIST. BEGUSARAI, DIST. BIHAR, PIN 848201
2: SIKANDER KUMAR
S/O GANGA RAM
R/O VILL. BISANPUR
WARD NO. 3
P.O. DEVPUR
P.S. NAWKOTHI
DIST. BEGUSARAI
STATE- BIHAR
PIN 848201
3: SANTOSH KUMAR
S/O RAMJI RAM
R/O VILL. BISANPUR
WARD NO. 3
P.O. DEVPURA
P.S. NAWKOTHI
DIST. BEGUSARAI
STATE BIHAR
PIN 84820
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P K DAS, MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY,S AHMED,MR. N G
Page No.# 2/20
KUNDU,MR. M BARUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Rajesh Mazumdar, J)
Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R.
Roy, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned
Page No.# 3/20
Senior Counsel and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, assisted by Ms. R.
Das, learned counsel.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, is preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2025
passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, in Sessions Case
no. T1/06/2019. By the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2025, the appellants
have been convicted for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code
(IPC), read with Section 34, IPC, and have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of
payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 6 (six) months.
Facts of the case:
3. On 02.10.2018, an FIR had been lodged by the informant informing the
Officer-in-charge of Salakati Police Outpost that his wife had informed him over
the telephone that a quarrel had started at their rented house amongst the
tenants. The informant had immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and
found the dead body of one of the tenants inside the room. He suspected that
the other tenants involved in the quarrel had caused the death of the deceased.
The information was thereafter forwarded to the Kokrajhar Police Station, and
accordingly, Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 490/2018 under Section 302/34 IPC was
registered, and an investigation was undertaken.
Page No.# 4/20
4. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the
three appellants herein, who were named as the accused, and the case
culminated in Sessions Case No. 6/2019 in the Court of the Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Kokrajhar and charges were framed on 01.02.2019.
5. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited several
documents. On closure of the prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were
examined under Section 313 Cr.PC; however, they did not produce any evidence
in defence. The point for determination framed by the learned Trial Court was as
follows:-
“i) Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention,
murdered the deceased Md. Shakil by sharp weapon?”
6. After hearing the arguments made on behalf of the prosecution and the
defence, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the accused, who are
also the three appellants herein, had committed an offense under Section
302/34 of the IPC, and convicted them as already stated in the foregoing
paragraphs.
7. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
present case is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence only. He has
submitted that in such circumstances, the prosecution in the present case had
Page No.# 5/20
failed to prove a complete chain of events and therefore, the findings of the
learned Trial Court deserve interference. The learned senior counsel has
submitted that the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution and cannot
be subject to probabilities. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the
proceedings in the present case fail to satisfy the test of the five golden
principles of circumstantial evidence.
8. He has stressed that it is an admitted position that there are no
eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. He has further submitted that the failure
to ensure the forensic examination of the alleged weapon used to commit the
crime, which was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, ought to
have been held to be fatal to the prosecution. He has submitted that the
learned Trial Court had committed a grave error when it assumed that the
version of the prosecution, that the accused had tried to flee the scene of the
crime or that they had failed to offer a reasonable explanation, would be proof
of guilt of the accused. He has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses was not consistent with regard to the commission of the crime. By
referring to the evidence on record, he has submitted that the same would
reveal that the accused and the deceased had a friendly relationship, they all
belonged to the same locality and were staying in the same tenanted premises
and in fact, the deceased was the brother-in-law of one of the accused. He has
submitted that the prosecution had failed to impute any motive for the crime,
Page No.# 6/20
and moreover, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove a common
intention to commit the crime. He has accordingly prayed for interference with
the order of the learned Trial Court and prayed for the acquittal of the accused.
9. He has relied upon the following judgements to substantiate his
submissions:
1. S.K. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 754
2. Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 725
3. Debapriya Pal Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 31
4. Balwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 245
5. Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 289
6. Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
966
7. Satye Singh & Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 169
10. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP has submitted that there is no quarrel that the
conviction in the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. She has
submitted that the prosecution in the present case had been able to prove a
Page No.# 7/20
complete chain of events without any missing links. She has submitted that not
sending the recovered weapon for forensic examination is not always fatal to
the case projected by the prosecution. She has submitted that the defence had
not been able to demolish the prosecution’s case that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together and that the death of the deceased, by stab
injuries, had occurred within such a short time thereafter that the only plausible
and reasonable inference that could be drawn was that the accused was liable
for the injuries received by the deceased. She has submitted that the evidence,
that the accused had tried to flee from the place of occurrence and that they
were restrained by the witnesses, could not be rebutted during the trial. The
learned counsel has submitted that the facts which led to the deceased being
stabbed could only be in the special knowledge of the accused since they were
with him immediately prior to the incident, but the accused had not offered any
explanation. She has submitted that motive, if proved will be another link in the
chain of circumstantial evidence, and the absence of a proved motive cannot be
a ground to reject the case of the prosecution. She has relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Prem Singh Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi and Another, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 372, to buttress her
submission.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The relevant records
have been perused, and the judgments cited have also received due
Page No.# 8/20
consideration.
12. PW1 was the nephew of the informant, and he testified that at about 5:30
PM on the day of the incident, his brother (PW14) had called for him to the
room of the accused persons, where he saw the dead body. The accused
wanted to flee, but he, along with his brother, had apprehended them.
13. PW2 deposed in similar lines when he said that PW14 had called him to
his residence, where he saw the dead body of a person on the floor of a room
with blood spilled around him. He saw the accused standing outside the room,
and the accused wanted to flee, but they apprehended them and informed the
police.
14. PW3 stated that he knew the informant and the accused person and that
PW14 had informed him that a person had been murdered at the tenanted
premises of the informant. He rushed to the place of occurrence and found the
body of a dead person. He also found the accused persons at the place of
occurrence.
15. PW4 knew the accused persons and stated that they were daily workers of
NTPC Salakati, and he was their supervisor. On the day of the occurrence, the
accused did not attend their duties at NTPC Salakati. He received a phone call in
the evening hours that the accused persons were causing trouble, and he was
Page No.# 9/20
required to come. When he reached the place of occurrence, he heard that the
deceased had expired. He had signed the inquest form where he identified his
signature. He had seen injuries on the left side rib of the deceased. In his cross-
examination, he stated that there were already 5/6 people present at the place
of occurrence and that he did not notice any quarrel or conflict among the
accused persons and the deceased.
16. PW5 was the informant in the case. He knew the accused person, and on
the day of the occurrence, he had gone to the crematorium. While returning, his
wife informed him over the phone that there was trouble going on in the rented
accommodation given to the accused persons and the deceased. When he
reached the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of the deceased and
immediately informed the in charge of Salakati Police Outpost. He Identified
Exhibit – 2 as the FIR, and he identified his signature thereon. He stated that
the police had seized a knife from the place of occurrence and that he had
signed the seizure list. He identified the knife as material Exhibit 1. He stated
that he was not present at the time of the occurrence and that he did not know
how the deceased died. He had rented out four rooms to four groups of
tenants, one of which was under the occupation of the accused persons and the
deceased. He stated that his statement had not been recorded by the police. He
confirmed that he affirmed that the knife was seized outside the room rented
out to the accused persons and that the body of the deceased was inside the
Page No.# 10/20
room.
17. PW6 knew the informant of the case, and he also knew the accused.
About six months back, he had come to know that there had been a death of a
person in the residence of the informant. On going to the place of occurrence,
he saw the dead body of a person. Later, the police came to the place of
occurrence and recovered a knife outside the room. In his cross-examination, he
stated that he did not know who found the knife.
18. PW7 stated similarly as PW6. PW7 stated that he had seen the dead body
inside the room, and the police had recovered a knife outside the room where
the deceased was lying. The knife was seized in his presence, and he had put
his signature on the seizure list. In his cross-examination, he submitted that the
accused were present when the knife was recovered, along with other villagers,
and he did not know how the deceased died.
19. PW8 stated he knew the accused and the deceased, who was his brother-
in-law. The incident occurred in the year 2018. The accused, along with the
deceased, had come to Salakati from Begusarai in search of jobs, and all the
persons stayed in one room at Salakati. After a few days, he came to know that
his brother-in-law had been murdered and the present accused had been
arrested. He, along with other family members, came to Salakati, and after the
postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them. He did not know under
Page No.# 11/20
what circumstances his brother-in-law had died.
20. PW9 knew the accused persons and the deceased was his relative. He had
come to Salakati along with the accused persons in search of livelihood. The
accused and the deceased used to live in one common room, and after a few
days, he came to know that the deceased had died. He came to Salakati, and
after the postmortem, the police handed over the body of the deceased to
them. In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was a habituated
drinker of alcohol and was in the habit of causing injuries to himself in an
inebriated condition. He did not know under what circumstances the deceased
had died.
21. PW10 was the mother of one of the accused, who deposed that the
accused and the deceased had come to Salakati for jobs. She did not know how
the deceased had died. Cross-examination was declined.
22. PW11 was the mother of another accused who stated that the accused
and the deceased had come to Salakati for jobs. She didn’t know how the
deceased had died. Cross examination was declined.
23. PW12 was the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the
deceased. He recorded his findings as here under:
Page No.# 12/20
“Findings :-
A stab injury seen over the left side of abdomen of approximate 4″ X 1″
with herniation of abdomonial fats and oozing of blood (clotted seen).
On dissection perforating injury of spleen and intestines seen. There is
large collection of intra abdominal seen.
OPINION: – In my opinion the cause of death is hypovolaemic shock
and hemorrhage caused by a sharp and pointed weapon which is ante-
mortem in nature and homicidal and the time since death is 24-30
hours. Exhibit-4 is the Postmortem report and Exhibit-4(1) is my
signature.”
In his cross examination he stated that he did not measure the depth of
the injury and he had not applied any measuring instrument to measure the
breadth of the injury. He had not done any specialization course in forensic
autopsy and he was an MBBS with diploma in ophthalmology. He denied the
suggestion that he was not competent to conduct the postmortem examination.
He denied the suggestion that he had not conducted a Postmortem
Examination.
24. PW13 stated that he was entrusted with the remaining half of the
Page No.# 13/20
investigation, and on finding that the investigation into the case had been
completed and having found sufficient materials against the accused, he had
submitted the charge sheet against them. He identified the charge sheet and his
signature thereon. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not recorded
the statement of the witnesses and that he did not visit the place of occurrence,
and he also did not prepare the sketch map of the area.
25. PW14 stated that he knew the informant and all the accused persons. He
was staying at the rented house of the informant as a tenant and was working
under NTPC He stated that all the three accused persons were also working
under NTPC and they had been staying in the rented house of the informant. On
the day of occurrence he had returned to his room after duty and he saw a
quarrel between the three accused persons and the deceased. He had gone to
the tubewell to freshen up, and after returning to his room, he saw the
deceased lying on the ground near the door inside his rented room. He informed
the informant. He then informed the police. The police apprehended all the
accused persons and took them to the police station. In his cross-examination,
he stated that the police had recorded his statement, but he denied that he had
stated before the investigation officer that he saw a quarrel between the three
accused and the deceased. He did not see how the deceased died, nor that
there was any enmity between the accused and the deceased. He had not seen
any incident of dispute or quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The
Page No.# 14/20
accused and the deceased had been staying along with him in the rented house
of the informant for a long time. The deceased had a friendship with the
accused persons, and they used to roam together and also had their meals
together.
26. PW15 is the wife of the deceased, who did not know much about the
incident. She stated she had received information about the death of her
husband in the rented house through the police. She stated that one of the
accused was her real brother and the other two accused were her neighbors. All
three accused persons had a cordial relationship with her husband. She did not
know the cause of death of her husband and she did not know how he died.
27. PW16 was the circle officer of Kokrajhar who had conducted the inquest
over the dead body of the deceased. His report was identified by him, and in his
cross-examination, he stated that he did not mention the side of the belly where
the injury mark was found and that he found only one injury mark on the body
of the deceased.
28. PW17 was the Investigation Officer, who stated that he had visited the
place of occurrence, drawn the sketch map of the place of occurrence and
recorded statements of all the witnesses. At the place of occurrence, he had
found the dead body of the deceased in his rented room, lying on the floor. He
had sent the dead body to the hospital for postmortem examination, and he had
Page No.# 15/20
also seized a knife from the possession of the accused persons. He had
apprehended the accused who were found at the place of occurrence and had
taken them to the police station. After interrogation, the accused were formally
arrested. On his transfer, he had handed over the case diary to the officer in
charge of the police station. During cross-examination, he stated that the
informant’s statement recorded by him was not available in the case diary. The
GD entry number and the police case number were mentioned in the case diary,
and therefore, he had not mentioned the GD entry number or the police case
number again in the sheets where he had recorded the statement of the
witnesses. In the GD entry, it had been stated that all three accused persons
were apprehended by the villagers on suspicion of murder. He affirmed that he
had seized the knife on 1/10/2018. In the seizure list, he did not specifically
mention the name of the person from whom the knife had been seized. He did
not mention the place from where the knife was recovered and seized. He did
not send the knife to FSL to ascertain whether it was the weapon of offense,
nor did he conduct a fingerprint test to match the fingerprint of the accused
with the fingerprint available on the seized knife by the expert. He denied that
he had conducted the investigation of the case perfunctorily and unnecessarily
involved the accused in the alleged offense.
29. The case of the defense was one of denial. The statement of the accused
under section 313 of the CRPC, after closing of prosecution evidence, had been
Page No.# 16/20
recorded. During the recording of the statements, none of the accused offered
any explanation regarding the death of the deceased. They refused to adduce
any defense evidence.
30. We have considered the evidence on record, and we have found that the
facts proved beyond reasonable doubt are that the deceased and the accused
had come to Salakati in search of earning a living, and they were employed in
the NTPC. The accused and the deceased had hired a room in the premises
owned by the informant and had been living together. There was no previous
enmity or quarrel witnessed between the accused persons and the deceased.
On the fateful day, when PW14 had returned from his work, he witnessed a
quarrel between the accused and the deceased, and a short while later, when
he returned after freshening up, he saw the body of the deceased lying on the
floor of the tenanted premises. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 indicates that
the accused persons had tried to abscond from the place of occurrence and
were restrained by PW1, PW2 and PW14. The alleged weapon used to commit
the offense had been seized from the place of occurrence in the presence of
witnesses. The death of the deceased had occurred due to a single stab injury
to the left of the ribs. It was a homicidal death. Since none of the witnesses
had witnessed the actual incident leading to the death of the deceased, the
prosecution had built up the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The
prosecution had been successful in bringing home the facts that the accused
Page No.# 17/20
and the deceased persons were well known to each other, were living in the
same tenanted room, that the accused had not attended office on the fateful
day, that the accused were the only person who were last seen with the
deceased before he met his untimely death, and that the death of the accused
was homicidal in nature.
31. It has come in evidence that there was no witness to any previous enmity
or quarrel between the accused and the deceased persons. In such
circumstances, we are of the considered view that it would only be the accused
persons who could inform the Court as to what had happened to the deceased,
between the time when they were seen quarreling with the deceased and the
time when the dead body of the deceased was found a short while later inside
the tenanted premises, in which all the four persons, i.e. the deceased and the
accused persons were living together.
32. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides as follows:
“106. Burden of proving fact, especially within knowledge. – When any fact is
especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
33. This court is conscious of the fact that the provisions of section 106 of the
Evidence Act are not designed to relieve the prosecution of the duty of
discharging the burden of proof. As held in the case of Sambhunath Mehra
Page No.# 18/20
Vs. State of Ajmer, reported in 1956 SCR 199, the provisions of section 106
of the Evidence Act are designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it
would be impossible or, at any rate, disproportionately difficult for the
prosecution to establish facts which are specially within the knowledge of the
accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The
word “especially” stresses that.
34. In the present case, when the death of the deceased is considered in the
light of the proximity of time within which the victim sustained fatal injuries and
the proximity of time when the accused were last seen with the deceased, the
same are enough to draw an inference that the victim’s death was caused by
the accused. Any deviation from the aforesaid course, would only be in the
knowledge of the accused, because such deviation would have been especially
within their knowledge. Since they have refused to state such facts, the
inference that they had been the cause of the homicidal death of the deceased
would remain undisturbed.
35. In the case of Trimuk Maruti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681, the Apex court has held that when a murder
is committed in secrecy inside a house, although the initial burden to establish
the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, there would also be a
corresponding burden on the inmates of the House to give a cogent explanation
Page No.# 19/20
as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the House cannot get away
by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation, on the supposed premise
that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution, and
there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. Pertinent that the
defense could not demolish the case of the prosecution that the accused were
last seen with the deceased in a quarrel, a short time before the body of the
deceased was recovered in the tenanted premises. As the foundational facts had
been proved, it was incumbent on the part of accused persons to discharge
their duty in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, i.e. they were to offer
proper explanation about the other facts, which were within their special
knowledge, which they failed to do.
36. The “Last seen” theory, in the considered opinion of the Court would play
a vital role in the present case, when the accused and the deceased were last
seen alive and the time gap between the point of time when the accused and
the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased was found dead is so
minute that the possibility of any person other than the accused persons being
the author of the crime becomes impossible. The Apex Court in the case of
Ganpat Singh versus the state of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2017)
16 SCC 353, had explained this principle. The evidence of PW14 that he had
seen a quarrel as he was going to freshen up and upon return, saw the
deceased lying on the ground, evidences that the time gap between the
Page No.# 20/20
accused and the deceased being seen alive and the deceased being found dead
was such, that the interference of a third party to cause the death of the
deceased would be completely ruled out.
37. In conclusion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution in this
case had been able to set forth a complete chain of events and circumstantial
evidence, which lead to the only conclusion that the death of the deceased,
within a short span of time of being last seen together with the accused persons
and in the complete absence of any explanation offered by any of the accused
persons, the irresistible finding of guilt by the learned Trial Court does not
require any interference.
38. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
39. Return the Trial Court Records.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
