Supreme Court sets aside conviction under Section 201 IPC, clarifies scope of appellate powers under CrPC
The Supreme Court has held that an appellate court can reverse or modify a conviction even when the accused has not filed an appeal.
The ruling came in The State of Assam v. Moinul Haque @ Monu, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8846 of 2025.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment on April 16, 2026.
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated December 22, 2022, in Criminal Appeal (J) No. 72 of 2018.
The High Court had set aside the respondent’s conviction and death sentence under Sections 302 and 376A IPC.
However, it affirmed his conviction under Section 201 IPC. The High Court also reduced the sentence to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The case concerned the death of Smt. Arnomai Bora, a school headmistress.
Her body was found concealed in a bag near the Kopili River on May 31, 2017.
The investigation led to charges under Sections 302, 201, and 376A read with Section 34 IPC against the respondent and a co-accused.
The trial court had sentenced the respondent to death. It also awarded life imprisonment to the co-accused.
He argued that the High Court wrongly appreciated the circumstantial evidence.
According to the State, the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances against the respondent.
The State also relied on the recovery of the deceased’s umbrella under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
In addition, it relied on the implication of the respondent by the co-accused.
He argued that the prosecution case rested only on the alleged recovery.
Further, he submitted that the recovery had no evidentiary value. He also said it failed to connect the accused with the crime.
He added that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.
It referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
The Court reiterated that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances in such cases.
Therefore, every link in the chain must point towards the guilt of the accused.
The Court found that the prosecution relied only on one circumstance.
That circumstance was the recovery of an umbrella allegedly belonging to the deceased.
However, the Court held that the prosecution did not prove the recovery in accordance with law.
It noted a 14-day gap between the incident and the recovery.
Moreover, family members identified the umbrella at the police station without following proper procedure.
The Court also found that the umbrella had no distinctive feature linking it to the deceased.
For these reasons, the recovery did not inspire confidence. It also failed to connect the accused with the crime.
The State had also relied on the statement of the co-accused.
On this issue, the Supreme Court referred to Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184.
The Court reiterated that a confessional statement of a co-accused carries weak evidentiary value.
Such a statement, therefore, cannot form the sole basis of conviction without strong corroboration.
The Supreme Court then examined whether it could interfere with the conviction under Section 201 IPC.
This issue arose because the accused had not filed an appeal against that conviction.
The Court referred to Section 386 CrPC.
It also noted the corresponding provision under Section 427 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Supreme Court held that an appellate court retains the power to examine the correctness of findings.
It can reverse or modify a conviction in the interests of justice.
The Court further clarified that the absence of an appeal by the accused does not restrict this power.
Accordingly, an appellate court may interfere where the conviction appears unsustainable.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in affirming the conviction under Section 201 IPC.
It set aside that conviction and acquitted the respondent of the said charge.
The Court directed that the respondent be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Assam.
It otherwise upheld the judgment of the Gauhati High Court.
The Court directed the Registry to forward the order to the trial court for compliance.
Finally, it disposed of all pending applications.
