Shillong, Jun 29 The Meghalaya High Court on Monday acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2015 murder of a woman in Shillong after the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W Diengdoh set aside the sentence of Ashim Sinha, who had been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs 50,000.
The previous judgment was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong in August 2023 against which Sinha had appealed before the high court.
The case pertained to the death of a woman identified as Soma Chettri. Her body was found in a room occupied by the appellant on Jail Road in Shillong on November 3, 2015.
Allowing Sinha's appeal, the high court observed that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and had failed to satisfy the legal tests laid down by the Supreme Court for sustaining a conviction in such cases.
The bench noted that although the prosecution had established that the woman died a homicidal death, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the crime.
The court found several gaps in the prosecution's case, including the failure to prove that the appellant had exclusive possession of the room where the body was found.
Evidence showed that another person had also stayed in the room, while one of the doors was found open, leaving open the possibility of someone else entering the premises, according to the High Court.
The judges also held that the prosecution had failed to establish the "last seen" theory, prove any motive for the crime or demonstrate that the appellant had absconded after the incident.
The bench noted that the prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that the appellant had taken leave from work after developing symptoms of chicken pox and was later arrested from his residence, weakening the prosecution's claim that he had deliberately gone into hiding.
It also observed that the prosecution failed to prove ownership of the mobile phones allegedly recovered, did not produce call detail records to support its claim that the appellant had switched off his phone and failed to exhibit or prove other crucial pieces of evidence relied upon during the investigation.
"The evidence, at the most, would raise only suspicion against the appellant. However, the said suspicion cannot take the place of proof," the court said.
Reiterating the settled legal principle governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, the bench observed that "suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and that every circumstance must be conclusively proved to form an unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to meet that standard, the court quashed the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant and directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
It also ordered a refund of the fine, if already deposited.
