Page 1 of 31

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

Crl.A.No.31/2024

Reserved on: 11.06.2026

Pronouncement on:29.06.2026

Shri Ashim Sinha ..... Appellant

Vs.

The State of Meghalaya, through the Commissioner &

Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Department of Home

(Police), Civil Secretariat, Shillong. ..... Respondent

Coram:

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. S. Thapa, Adv with

Mr. S. Khyriem, Adv

Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv

For the Respondent : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with

Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication

in press: Yes

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)

By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the

judgment of conviction dated 1

st August, 2023 and order of

Serial No.01

Daily List

2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 2 of 31

sentence dated 2

nd August, 2023, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong, in Session Case No.10 of

2016, convicting and sentencing him to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the

IPC and to pay fine of ₹50,000/-, in default of payment of fine

to further undergo imprisonment for six months.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under;

3. The informant-S.I. Nobin Koch of Sadar Police Station,

Shillong lodged an FIR on 9

th November, 2015, alleging an

offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC i.e., that one

unknown lady was found dead under mysterious

circumstances in the room occupied by the appellant located

at Raigorh Annex Chamber, Jail Road, Shillong behind Vishal

Mega Mart. The FIR was lodged as against the appellant, on

suspicion, as the room was occupied by the appellant and his

mobile was found to be switched off. During the course of

investigation, the victim was identified as Soma Chettri by her

friend Smti. Balari Nongrum-PW3. Also, during the course of 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 3 of 31

investigation, the police recorded the statements of several

witnesses. The appellant was arrested from his residence on

18

th November, 2015 and after investigation, chargesheet was

filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Shillong. Since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions,

the case was committed to the Sessions Court and was

numbered as Sessions Case No.10 of 2016.

4. The trial court framed charge against the appellant on

6

th April, 2016 under Section 302 of the IPC, to which the

appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The

defence of the appellant was that of denial, false implication

and alibi.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as

many as 20 witnesses, who are as under;

(1) Shri Nobin Koch (informant)-PW1

(2) Shri Amit Singhania-PW2

(3) Smti. Balari Nongrum-PW3 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 4 of 31

(4) Smti. Monica Basumatary-PW4

(5) Smti. Subida Basumatary-PW5

(6) Advocate-PW6 (son of the Employer)

(7) Advocate-PW7 (Employer)

(8) Shri Rajiv Nongkhlaw-PW8

(9) Shri Ranjit Deb-PW9

(10) Smti. Sengre Ch. Momin-PW10

(11) Shri Popasmart R. Marak-PW11

(12) Shri Markus Dohkrut-PW12

(13) Shri Pherdon Pathaw-PW13

(14) Dr. Prak Singh-PW14

(15) Shri Dharmendra Kumar Prasad-PW15

(16) WPSI Natalia Peggy S. Marak-PW16

(17) Smti. Arundhati Dey @ Lucky Dey-PW17

(18) Shri Shyamal Deb-PW18

(19) S.I. Shri Rikseng M. Sangma-PW19

(20) Smti. Daman Phika Shadap-PW20

2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 5 of 31

6. Thereafter, the 313 statement of the appellant was

recorded. The appellant in support of his defence, examined

one witness i.e., Shri Sishi Babu Sinha as DW1.

7. After hearing the parties and after perusing the evidence

on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the

appellant as stated aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

8. Mr. Thapa, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case as

against the appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted

that the evidence of PW17, which is relied upon by the

prosecution to prove last seen cannot be termed as last seen.

He further submitted that the prosecution has not proved

motive for the appellant to kill the deceased and that the same

is evident from the fact, that even the learned Trial Judge has

not recorded his finding vis-à-vis the same. He further

submitted that the dupatta with which the deceased was

strangulated was never exhibited, despite being found on the

spot and that neither have the two mobiles allegedly recovered 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 6 of 31

from the appellant been proved as belonging to either, the

deceased or the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant

further submitted that the prosecution strongly relies on the

circumstance of abscondence against the appellant, however,

the evidence on record would reveal that the appellant was not

absconding and that he had gone to his home, as he was

unwell. He further submitted that the fact, that the appellant

was on leave, as he was unwell, is in fact supported by the

testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there

is no evidence whatsoever on record , to show that the

deceased was residing with the appellant in the room, where

the dead body was found nor has the prosecution proved that

it was the appellant and the appellant alone who was residing

in the room given by his employer , having regard to the

evidence of the Investigating Officer-PW19 and Ranjit Deb-

PW9. Thus, according to Mr. Thapa, having regard to the

evidence that has come on record, it cannot be said that the

prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 7 of 31

doubt, as against the appellant and as such, the impugned

judgment and order of conviction and sentence be set aside.

9. Mr. Chullai, learned AAG opposed the appeal. He

submitted that no interference was warranted in the

impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence

awarded by the learned trial court. He submitted that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He

submitted that the prosecution has proved the evidence of last

seen; that the appellant was occupying the room; and, that he

was absconding, inasmuch as the appellant’s phone was

switched off.

10. At the outset, we may note that the case in hand is a

case which rests purely on circumstantial evidence. The law

with respect to circumstantial evidence is no longer res

integra. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Apex Court

laid down five golden principles to be followed in a case based

on circumstantial evidence; 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 8 of 31

“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of

guilt is to be drawn should be fully established,

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only

with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to

say, they should not be explainable on any other

hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature

and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except

the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not

to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

consistent with the innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probability the act must have

been done by the accused.”

11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we now proceed to deal

with the evidence that has come on record and whether the

prosecution has successfully proved the circumstances and

the chain of circumstances qua the appellant.

12. At the outset, we may note that the appellant has not

seriously disputed the fact, that that the deceased died a

homicidal death and as such, the fact that the deceased died a

homicidal death stands proved. The only question that arises 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 9 of 31

for consideration is whether the appellant was the author of

the same.

13. PW1-Shri Nobin Koch, is the first informant. He was

attached to the Sadar Police Station. He has deposed that on

3

rd November, 2015, an unknown dead body was found in a

mysterious condition at Jail Road behind Vishal Mega Mart.

Accordingly, WPSI N.P.S. Marak was deputed for enquiry and

as during enquiry, ligature mark was found on the neck of the

deceased, the dead body was sent to the Shillong Civil hospital

for postmortem and S.I. R.M. Sangma was sent for

investigation. PW1 has further deposed that d uring the

investigation, it was revealed that the dead body found in the

room was occupied by the appellant, who was working as a

driver of Advocates PW6 and PW7. It appears from PW1’s

evidence that the police tried to establish contact with the

appellant on his mobile, however, the same was found

switched off. Accordingly, PW1 lodged an FIR with the Sadar

Police Station. The said FIR is exhibited as Exhibit-1. The case 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 10 of 31

was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

the IPC, on suspicion as against the appellant, as his mobile

was switched off and as he was occupying the room, where the

dead body was found. In his cross-examination, PW1 has

admitted that he had not visited the place of occurrence but

had lodged an FIR on the basis of the information received by

him.

14. PW2-Shri Amit Singhania was examined by the

prosecution to prove the identity of the deceased. The evidence

of PW2 reveals that the deceased was working in his shop as a

salesgirl; that she was staying at Nongmynsong, Shillong in a

rented premises (not the appellant’s house); that during the

Durga Puja in 2015, the deceased had taken leave for one

week and did not report for duty thereafter; that in November,

2015, the police brought a photograph of the deceased and

showed it to him pursuant to which, he identified her

(deceased). PW2 has further stated that on 7

th November,

2015, he received a call from the Sadar Police Station asking 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 11 of 31

him if he wanted to dispose of the dead body pursuant to

which, he along with the police and other friends of the

deceased received the dead body from the Hospital and

cremated her in the electric crematorium at Jhalupara. It

appears from the cross-examination of PW2, as the police had

informed him that no family members could be traced of the

deceased, he cremated the dead body.

15. PW3-Smti. Balari Nongrum has in her evidence stated

that the deceased was working in her house to look after her

child since 2011 till the end of 2012; that she learnt of the

death of Soma (deceased) on 5

th November, 2015, when the

police visited her house and showed her a photograph of

Soma, whom she identified as the person working in her

house as a maidservant. She has stated that on 6

th November,

2015, the police took her to a house where Soma had died;

that the police seized certain articles and accordingly prepared

a seizure list in her presence, which is exhibited as Exhibits-2

and 3. 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 12 of 31

16. In her cross-examination, PW3 has admitted that

although, she put her signature on Exhibits-2 and 3, she did

not know the contents of the items seized that were mentioned

in the seizure list. She has stated in her re-examination by the

prosecution that the dead body of Soma was handed over to

her for performing her last rites on 6

th November, 2015 and

that there was a panchnama to that effect prepared i.e.,

Exhibit-4, of handing over the dead body to her. PW3 has

identified her signature thereon. In her re-cross examination

by the defence, PW3 has stated that on humanitarian ground

she took possession of the dead body of the deceased to

perform the last rites and that she, Shantilin Nongrum and

the employer of the deceased were present in the crematorium.

17. Having perused the evidence of PW2 and PW3 with

respect to handing over the dead body of the deceased, there

appears to be some discrepancy inasmuch as, PW2 does not

speak about the presence of PW3, who was also present when

the dead body was handed over. Be that as it may, nothing 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 13 of 31

turns on the same. The fact remains, that the dead body was

handed over atleast to PW3 for cremation.

18. PW4 to PW7 were examined by the prosecution to prove

that the room where the dead body was found, was given to

the appellant by PW7 during the course of his employment

that he was residing in the said room.

19. PW4-Smti. Monica Basumatary was working as a

domestic servant in the house of PW6 and PW7 for about 1 5

years. The said witness has deposed that the employer had a

chamber near Vishal Mega Mart, Jail Road; that the appellant

was working as a driver on the vehicle of PW7 and that the

appellant was residing next to the chamber of PW7 at Raigorh,

Jail Road near Vishal Mega Mart. PW4 has further deposed

that in 2015 during the Durga Puja, appellant was suffering

from chicken pox and therefore, his employer PW7 granted

him leave. She has stated that on 27

th October 2015, the

appellant came to the residence of PW7 at Jail Road, and that

on seeing the appellant not keeping well, PW7 asked the 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 14 of 31

appellant to take a few days rest and gave him some money.

PW4 has further deposed that on 2

nd November, 2015, she and

her colleague Subita (PW5) went to the chamber of PW7; that

on reaching the chamber, she and her employer found the

room where the appellant was residing locked from inside and

hence, they returned back; that on 3

rd November, 2015 at 12

noon, she and her colleague Subita (PW5) went to the chamber

of the employer, knocked the door of the appellant’s room,

however, he did not open the door; that thereafter, they went

to the chamber of PW7 to clean the chamber; that after

cleaning the chamber, she remembered that there was another

door to the room where the appellant was residing and hence,

she and PW5 went and saw the door open and saw that there

was one person wearing a female dress lying on the bed; that

she and PW5 shouted and tried to wake her up from the door

but the person lying on the bed did not respond; that they

returned and informed PW6 and PW7, who were in Nongpoh at

that time; that the employer called his friend, who was

occupying a room above his chamber, pursuant to which, the 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 15 of 31

friend came and entered the room of the appellant and found a

female dead body on the bed. PW4 has further deposed that

she and her colleague i.e., PW5, were standing at the

entrance, and that the police arrived at the spot. PW4 has

further deposed that she did not know the deceased victim

and had seen her only once with the appellant at Jail Road.

She has further stated that she did not know where the

appellant had gone, as his mobile phone was coming switched

off from 27

th October, 2015.

20. In her cross-examination, PW4 has stated that on 2

nd

November, 2015, at night time, she tried calling the appellant

on his mobile, however, the same was switched off; that she

went to the appellant’s room to enquire about his health,

however, the room was locked from inside and nobody

responded when she knocked the door and hence, returned

home; that on 3

rd November, 2015, she saw one person lying

on the bed and thinking that it was the appellant, she called

out his name, as the appellant was not keeping good health. 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 16 of 31

She has further stated in her cross-examination that pursuant

thereto, she informed her employer PW7. PW4 has further in

her cross-examination stated that she had seen the deceased

from outside the room of the appellant on 3

rd November, 2015.

21. Another employee working with PW6 and PW7 was

examined by the prosecution as PW5 -Smti. Subita

Basumatary. Her evidence is on similar lines as that of PW4.

She has in her examination -in-chief stated that on 3

rd

November, 2015, she alongwith PW4 after cleaning the

chamber of her employer , had gone to check the room

occupied by the appellant, as he was not keeping well; that

from the door she and PW4 saw one person lying on the bed,

so they called out the name of the appellant, however, there

was no response; that pursuant thereto, they called the

employer; that PW7 informed the house owner who came to

the room, who in turn informed the police. She has stated that

when the police arrived, they were standing outside the room

from where they saw that the dead body lying, was that of a 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 17 of 31

female. PW5 has stated that she recognised the deceased from

her face, as she had once seen her with the appellant near

Bhutia market at Bara Bazar. She has stated that after one or

two days, the police again came to the appellant’s room

pursuant to which, the door was opened and the police seized

several items on which she put her signature i.e., Exhibit-5.

22. In her cross-examination, PW5 has admitted that it was

a fact, that the appellant was sick on the previous days of the

incident and that the appellant was sick for about one to two

weeks. She has denied the suggestion that she had not seen

the deceased and the appellant together, however, has

admitted that she could not remember the exact date, when

she saw the deceased and the appellant together in October,

2015. She has also stated that the last time she met the

appellant was on 27

th October, 2015.

23. PW6 and P7, both Advocates (PW6 is the son of PW7)

are the employers with whom the appellant was working. PW6

has stated that the appellant was working as a driver with his 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 18 of 31

father PW7; that the driver was provided rented

accommodation and was paid a monthly salary and that the

appellant was also provided free accommodation and food.

PW6 has further deposed that in the month of October, 2015,

during the Puja festival, he had handed over the vehicle to the

appellant at Polo and asked him to park his vehicle in the

garage, located at Jail Road, when the appellant complained

that he was not keeping well and told him that he may not

attend duty on the next day. He has further stated that for the

next few days, the appellant was absent from duty and that

when he contacted him through phone, he told him that he

was not keeping well and that he had developed symptoms of

chicken pox. PW6 has further deposed that on 3

rd November,

2015, he and his father had gone to Nongpoh Court, when he

received a call from his maidservant-PW4, who informed him

about what she and PW3 had seen in the room; that pursuant

thereto, he informed the landlord and asked him to go and

check the room; that the landlord visited the room and 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 19 of 31

informed his father that the lady lying on the bed was dead,

pursuant to which, he informed the Sadar Police Station.

24. In his cross-examination, PW6 has stated that

videography of the incident was done as narrated by the

appellant, post his arrest. However, it is not necessary to get

into the videography done by the police inasmuch as, the

person who did the videography has not been examined nor

was the videography shown in Court.

25. On similar lines is the evidence of PW7, the employer of

the appellant. PW7 has stated that he had engaged the

appellant as a driver and that apart from salary, he was also

given a room for his accommodation. PW7 has deposed that

on October, 2015, the appellant approached him saying that

he was not keeping well and wanted some leave; that

considering that the Durja Puja was approaching, he gave him

leave till he became fit to resume his duty. PW7 has further

deposed that as it was Durga Puja, he did not attend his

chamber every day and that after Puja was over, he attended 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 20 of 31

his office once and found the appellant’s room locked from

inside. He has stated that he thought that the appellant was

taking rest, as he was not well and that thereafter, he did not

visit his chamber for two days. He has stated that before going

to Nongpoh, he asked his domestic help i.e., PW4 to visit the

appellant’s room and enquired about his health. He has stated

that while he was returning from Nongpoh along with his son-

PW6, he received a call from Shyamal Deb -PW18, who was

residing at the adjacent house and the owner of Raigorh,

informing him that one female dead body was lying in the

appellant’s room on his bed. On getting the said information,

he has stated that PW6 informed the police.

26. In his cross-examination, PW7 had admitted that in the

first week of October, the appellant had approached him, as

he was not well and wanted to take leave. That on the next

day, the appellant again approached him and asked for

₹1000/- for his medicine, as he was not keeping well. He has

stated that during the Durga Puja, he did not attend the 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 21 of 31

chamber and after Puja, when he went to the chamber, he

found the appellant’s room locked from inside; that before

going to the Court, he asked PW4 to enquire about the

appellant’s health; that PW4 called up at around 1:00 to 1:30;

that at around 1:00 to 1:30, he received a call from Shyamlal

Deb-PW18, who informed that one female dead body was

found in the room of the appellant.

27. From the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses, it appears

that the appellant had taken leave from 27

th October, 2015 or

few days prior thereto, on the ground that he was unwell. The

evidence also shows that the said witnesses have admitted

that the appellant was unwell and had taken leave. Their

evidence also shows that the room in which the dead body was

found was given by PW6 and PW7 to the appellant, as he was

working as a driver of PW7. The aforesaid evidence although

shows that the room was given by PW7 to the appellant to

stay, the said room was also occupied by Ranjit Deb, who the

prosecution examined, as PW9. 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 22 of 31

28. PW9 has stated that in the year 2015, he was driving

the vehicle of Vijay Sinha, the elder brother of the appellant;

that as he was having problem of getting a house on rent; that

Vijay Sinha asked him to keep his trunk and suitcase in the

rented accommodation occupied by the appellant, which he

did. He has stated that after five days, the police apprehended

him and took him to the Sadar Police Station; that on the next

day, the police inquired from him of the whereabouts of the

owner of the vehicle Vijay Sinha, pursuant to which, he

disclosed that he was a resident of Kahilipara, Guwahati,

Assam and also informed the police that Shri Vijay Sinha had

gone to his native place due to the demise of his mother. He

has further stated that he was compelled to lie at the behest of

the police, when they made him call the owner and disclosed

to him, that the vehicle had met with an accident and was

lying in Sadar Police Station. He has further stated that on

learning the information, Vijay Sinha came to the police

station; that when Vijay Sinha was asked to give the 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 23 of 31

whereabouts of the appellant, he gave the location of the

appellant to the police.

29. In his cross-examination, PW9 has deposed that he also

accompanied the police to the place from where the appellant

was apprehended. He has admitted in his cross-examination

that the appellant was apprehended from his residence and

that the parents of the appellant and his younger brother were

present when he was arrested. It is a matter of record that

articles of PW9 were seized from the room where the dead

body was found.

30. It is pertinent to note that PW19-S.I. Shri Rikseng M.

Sangma, Investigating Officer has in his examination-in-chief

deposed that PW9-Ranjit Deb, when located had admitted that

he used to stay with the appellant for some time and that he

was driving the vehicle of Vijay Sinha. Thus, from the said

evidence which has come on record and more particularly,

finding of articles belonging to Ranjit Deb, it cannot be said

that the appellant was in exclusive occupation of the room 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 24 of 31

given to him by his employer. Infact, the appellant has

categorically in his 313 statement stated that although the

room was allocated to him, four other persons including him

were staying in the said room, which was not known to the

employer. Apart from the aforesaid, admittedly, the

prosecution has not proved that the two mobile phones seized

from the appellant, belonged either to the deceased or the

appellant. Similarly, the videography allegedly done by the

prosecution which was seized under a panchnama, the

prosecution admittedly, did not examine the person who

conducted the videography nor did they play the said

videography in Court. Thus, the prosecution had failed to

bring on record the alleged disclosure made by the appellant

in the videography of the circumstances that took place on the

day of the incident. The defence of the appellant was that at

the time of the incident, he was at his home, bedridden. The

fact that he was unwell has come in the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses, pursuant to which he was on leave.

The evidence of PW6 shows that when he contacted the 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 25 of 31

appellant for work, the appellant informed him that he was

not keeping well and that he had developed symptoms of

chicken pox. This evidence shows that PW6 had spoken to the

appellant whilst on leave. The said evidence does not support

the prosecution theory that the appellant had switched off his

mobile. The prosecution has also failed to bring any CDR on

record to show that the appellant had switched off his mobile

phone since 27

th October, 2015 or that he was not unwell.

31. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, it cannot

be said with utmost certainty that it is the appellant and the

appellant alone, who was occupying the room in question

having regard to the fact, that it is PW19-the Investigating

Officer himself, who has admitted in his evidence, that PW9-

Ranjit Deb used to stay with the appellant for some time. It

has also come in the evidence of PW4 and PW5 that one door

was locked from inside and another door was found open and

as such, the possibility of somebody else entering the room

cannot be completely ruled out. The evidence on record also 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 26 of 31

does not suggest that the deceased was living in the said room

with the appellant. As far as abscondence is concerned, there

are serious doubts considering the evidence that has come on

record, whether the appellant can be said to be absconding.

Evidence of witnesses show that the appellant was unwell and

had sought leave and was at his residence along with his

parents and brother, when arrested.

32. From the evidence that has come on record in the cross-

examination of PW16-Smti. WPSI Natalia Peggy S. Marak, it

cannot be said with certainty that the room was found locked

from inside or outside and if it was locked from inside, who

broke open the lock. In her examination-in-chief, PW16 stated

that the said room was locked from outside and did not

remember who broke the lock but after the lock was broken,

they entered inside and on entering, they saw a dead body of a

female lying on the bed. Whereas, in her cross-examination,

she has admitted that she had not broken the lock of the room

where the dead body was lying; that she did not ascertain as 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 27 of 31

to who had broken the lock. PW16 has also admitted that she

was not aware whether the room was accessible through

another way other than the main door. This evidence is

contrary to what was deposed by PW4 and PW5, that one door

was locked from inside and the other door was open.

33. The only evidence that has come on record is that of

PW17, upon which the prosecution places strong reliance.

PW17-Smti. Arundhati Dey has deposed that in October, 2015

(no date given) there was an argument between the appellant

and the deceased; that she received a call from the deceased,

who was her friend who asked her to come and meet her at

her house; that she went to the house of the deceased, where

she saw the appellant; that she saw the deceased and

appellant were initially cordial with each other, however, later

again started quarrelling. She has stated that she impressed

upon them not to quarrel with each other and they came and

dropped her at Police Bazar. She has stated that later in the

morning, she received a call from the deceased, who informed 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 28 of 31

her that the appellant had threatened to kill her. She has

stated that on reaching her house, she called the appellant

and the deceased on their mobile phones, however, the same

were coming switched off. PW16 has also stated that after one

week, she received a call from the police informing her that

her friend had been murdered by the appellant.

34. In her cross-examination, PW17 had admitted that the

deceased had informed her that the appellant had proposed

marriage; and that the deceased was pregnant (it is pertinent

to note that the postmortem report does not in any way show

that the deceased was pregnant). PW17 is stated to have

informed the deceased that the appellant did not have a good

character. She had also admitted that on one occasion, in a

quarrel between the deceased and the appellant, the deceased

put a knife on the appellant’s neck, and that she had pulled

the knife and taken it away from the deceased. It is pertinent

to note that this is the only evidence that has come on record.

Admittedly, the deceased was not living with the appellant. 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 29 of 31

Infact, it has come in the evidence of some of the witnesses

that the deceased was residing in her own residence. The

evidence of PW17 at the highest would raise only suspicion

against the appellant. However, the said suspicion cannot take

the place of proof. There is a long distance that must travel

between may be true and must be true and having regard to

the evidence, as has come on record, we find that the same

has not been established by the prosecution beyond

reasonable doubt, qua the appellant.

35. Since the prosecution, as noted above, has failed to

establish its case qua the appellant beyond reasonable doubt,

it is not necessary to advert to the evidence of the defence

witness.

36. Time and again in a catena of cases, including in

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda’s case (supra), Courts have held

that suspicion however strong cannot substitute proof beyond

reasonable doubt. Courts have held that this is not only a

grammatical but there is also a legal distinction between ‘may’ 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 30 of 31

and ‘must’ and that for proving a case based on circumstantial

evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish each

and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. Further,

the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of

evidence, so as not to leave any reasonable ground for any

conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and

that it must show in all human probability, that the act was

done by the accused. The facts so established must also

exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

37. Considering what is stated hereinabove, we find that the

prosecution has failed to prove its case qua the appellant,

beyond reasonable doubt.

38. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated

1

st August, 2023 and order of sentence dated 2

nd August,

2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Shillong, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2016, are quashed and set

aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he

is convicted and sentenced. 2026:MLHC:629-DB

Page 31 of 31

39. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required

in any other case. Fine, if any, deposited to be refunded to the

appellant.

40. The appeal is allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid

terms.

41. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)

Judge Chief Justice

Meghalaya

29.06.2026

“Lam DR-PS”

2026:MLHC:629-DB