The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Assam against the judgment and final order dated 22nd December, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 72 of 2018, whereby the High Court had partly allowed the appeal of the accused-respondent Moinul Haque @ Monu and acquitted him of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while affirming his conviction under Section 201 IPC and reducing the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for seven years to rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine. A bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, in its order dated 16th April, 2026 in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8846 of 2025, upheld the acquittal of the accused-respondent for the offences of murder and rape but further set aside his conviction under Section 201 IPC, directing his immediate release from custody.
The Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the accused-respondent rested purely on circumstantial evidence. The dead body of Smt. Arnomai Bora, Headmistress of Changjurai Elachi Deuri L.P. School, Jamunamukh, was found concealed in a bag on the banks of the Kopili River on 31st May, 2017. FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and during investigation the accused-respondent and co-accused Salim Uddin @ Salim were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 302, 376A, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial Court convicted the accused-respondent for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC and sentenced him to death and also convicted him under Section 201 IPC sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The High Court, while dealing with the death reference and appeals, acquitted the accused-respondent of the charges under Sections 302 and 376A IPC but affirmed his conviction under Section 201 IPC with reduced sentence.
The Supreme Court noted that the solitary circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to connect the accused-respondent with the crime was the alleged recovery of the deceased’s umbrella pursuant to his disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court examined the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-19) and held that “neither was the recovery of the umbrella proved as per law nor does the identification thereof inspire confidence so as to link the same either to the accused-respondent or to the crime”. The Court further observed that there was a significant gap of approximately 14 days between the date of the incident and the recovery, the umbrella bore no distinctive features, and the identification was conducted in clear contravention of established procedure by merely calling family members to the police station without sealing the article or conducting test identification in the presence of a Magistrate.
Referring to the principles governing circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court reiterated the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 and held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of circumstances which unequivocally pointed towards the guilt of the accused-respondent and excluded every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. On the submission of the State that the co-accused had implicated the accused-respondent, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184 and observed that “the statements contained in the confessions of the co-accused persons stand on a different footing” and that such statements can be considered only after the other evidence is found to be satisfactory, which was not the case here.
While dealing with the conviction under Section 201 IPC which had not been challenged by the accused-respondent, the Supreme Court held that “the absence of an appeal by the accused-respondent does not, by itself, denude this Court of its appellate jurisdiction”. The Court clarified that “in exercise of powers under Section 386 of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 427 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023], the appellate Court is vested with the power to examine the correctness of the findings and sentence recorded by the Court below and to reverse, alter or affirm the same, as the interests of justice may require”. The Court was of the view that “the High Court clearly fell into error in affirming the conviction of the accused-respondent for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC” and accordingly set aside the said conviction and sentence.
The Supreme Court concluded that “the finding recorded in the impugned judgment dated 22nd December, 2022, to the extent it affirms the conviction of the accused-respondent for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder, is unsustainable in facts and in law and is accordingly set aside”. The accused-respondent, who was in custody, was directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The appeal preferred by the State of Assam was dismissed. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the trial Court for necessary action.
Case Title: The State of Assam v. Moinul Haque @ Monu
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 8846 of 2025)
Date of Order: 16 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 