Criminal appeals can outlive the era of their crime. Hasmat Ali v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 72/2005, decided by the Delhi High Court on 25 September 2026, concerned a murder committed on the first day of the year 2000 — prosecuted under the IPC and the Indian Evidence Act, statutes since succeeded by the BNS and BSA for new offences. The Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the appeal and affirmed the life sentence, in a judgment that works through each link of a classic circumstantial case: motive, last seen, discovery, and the accused’s silence where explanation was owed.
Anatomy of the chain
| Link | Evidence | Function in the chain |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship and opportunity | Employment; the accused took the deceased for payment collection | Places the parties together by design, not chance |
| Motive | Financial disputes over uncollected business payments | Explains why — never indispensable, but cementing when present |
| Last seen | Deceased travelled with the accused on 1 January 2000 | Shifts an evidential burden of explanation to the accused |
| The body | Recovered 2 January 2000 at Bulandshahr; identified by photographs and clothing | Establishes homicide — head contusions, medically confirmed |
| Discovery | Accused’s disclosure of the burial location | Demonstrates special knowledge admissible under Section 27 |
| Silence | No credible explanation in the Section 313 examination | Completes the chain where explanation was uniquely within his power |
Why the appeal failed
Appellate review of circumstantial convictions does not re-run the trial; it audits the links. The Bench asked whether each circumstance was proved by reliable evidence, whether the links cohered, and whether any reasonable hypothesis of innocence survived. The defence attacked identification of the body and the reliability of the last-seen account, but identification through photographs and clothing stood corroborated by the accused’s own disclosure of the disposal site — a convergence difficult to explain innocently. With motive supplying the narrative and Section 313 answers supplying nothing, the chain closed.
Old-code appeals in a new-code era
Offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue to be tried and decided under the IPC, CrPC and Evidence Act; the BNS, BNSS and BSA govern later offences. Delhi’s appellate dockets will carry both regimes side by side for years. Counsel handling legacy appeals should brief the old provisions precisely while knowing their successors — Section 27 Evidence Act finds its analogue in Section 23(2) BSA, and Section 106 in Section 109 — because the jurisprudence flows across the transition.
Practice lessons
For the defence in circumstantial appeals:
✓ Attack the weakest proved link, not the inference — an unproved circumstance breaks the chain; a debatable inference rarely does.
✓ Scrutinise the discovery memo: time, witnesses, prior police knowledge of the spot. A discovery already known to the police is no discovery.
✓ Treat the Section 313 stage at trial as appellate raw material — evasive or absent explanations become the final link against the accused.
✓ Where decades have passed, examine witness availability and record integrity; but delay alone, as this case shows, does not dilute a well-proved chain.
The judgment adds to a consistent line of Delhi High Court decisions affirming that circumstantial cases are neither second-class prosecutions nor easy appellate targets: they stand or fall on the discipline of their links, whichever decade the appeal is finally heard in.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the prosecution case?
The accused, an employee, took his employer from Delhi on 1 January 2000 on the pretext of collecting business payments at Jaipur. The employer never returned. An unclaimed body was found on 2 January 2000 at Bulandshahr; the accused later disclosed the burial location, and the body was identified as the employer’s through photographs and clothing. Medical evidence showed homicidal death from head injuries.
What role did the discovery under Section 27 play?
The accused’s disclosure leading to the burial site was admissible as a discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act — knowledge only the participant in disposal would possess. In the BSA regime the corresponding principle continues under Section 23(2). Discovery evidence does not prove the killing by itself, but it fastens the accused to the aftermath in a way innocent explanation must answer.
How does the last-seen circumstance operate?
Where the deceased was last seen alive in the accused’s company, and death follows within a proximate window, the accused bears an evidential burden — under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, now Section 109 BSA — to explain what happened. The employment relationship and the Jaipur trip placed the deceased with the accused; no credible account of parting company was offered.
What standard governs circumstantial convictions?
The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and form a complete chain. The Division Bench found the chain complete: relationship, motive rooted in financial disputes over uncollected payments, last-seen testimony, identification of the body, and the accused’s knowledge of its disposal.