In the Kokrajhar rape-murder of two minor girls found hanging from a tree in 2021, the Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction of all three accused on the strength of DNA evidence, but has set aside their death sentence and ordered them to spend the rest of their natural lives in prison without remission.
Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has affirmed the conviction of Forizul Rahman, Nasibul Ali Sk and Muzammel Sk for the gang rape and murder of two minor girls, aged about 14 and 16, in Kokrajhar in June 2021, but declined to confirm the death sentence awarded by the trial court, holding that the prosecution placed no material to show that the convicts were beyond reformation [Forizul Rahman and Others v. State of Assam and Another].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, in a judgment authored by Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, answered the Death Sentence Reference in the negative and substituted the sentence with imprisonment for the remainder of the convicts’ natural lives, without ordinary remission or commutation, subject to the constitutional powers of the President and the Governor under Articles 72 and 161.
The case
On June 11, 2021, the two girls, both from the same family, were found hanging from a tree in the Singimari jungle in Kokrajhar. According to the FIR, family members returning from their paddy fields found the girls, who had been alone at home, missing, and were later told that their bodies had been found. A post-mortem conducted under videography at Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, found forcible vaginal and anal intercourse and clear signs of strangulation.
Mobile tower dumps led police to the third accused, whose number was linked to deleted messages on a phone, and the other two were picked up after his interrogation. A Special Investigation Team was formed, and the DNA profiles of the three accused matched the swabs collected from the girls. Four other suspects were arrested but not sent for trial for want of evidence.
On April 8, 2022, the Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar convicted the three under Sections 376D, 376DA, 376A, 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and sentenced them to death. The convicts appealed, and the trial court made a reference for confirmation of the death sentence.
Defence: DNA samples unreliable
Advocate Azad Ahmed, for the appellants, argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitness, and that the witnesses only placed the accused in the general vicinity. He attacked the integrity of the biological samples, pointing to expert admissions about degradation and possible contamination, fragmented DNA in several exhibits, and procedural gaps in collecting and preserving blood and semen samples. He also contended that tower-location data could not prove physical presence and that the confessions, made in police custody, were inadmissible.
Senior Advocate and Additional Public Prosecutor B. Bhuyan and Advocate Sarfraz Nawaz, for the informant, argued that the medical evidence established rape and manual strangulation, that the hanging was an attempt to stage a suicide, and that the forensic report recorded specific DNA matches for each accused. The contamination objection, they said, was a mere possibility, since the expert never stated that the samples actually examined were contaminated.
Possibility of contamination is not proof of it
The Bench rejected the attack on the DNA evidence, noting that the laboratory had reported both successful and failed examinations, which undercut any suggestion that positive results were simply assumed. It held:
“PW-16 also stated in cross-examination that contamination can produce an erroneous result, but the possibility that a contaminated sample may produce an erroneous result is distinct from evidence that the sample in question was contaminated.”
The Court treated the call detail records as only corroborative, since a tower location does not establish a person’s precise location, and held that the custodial statements could not be used as confessions, save for the portion admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The decisive circumstance, the Bench said, was the forensic link: the vaginal swab of one girl matched Nasibul Ali Sk, her anal swab matched Muzammel Sk, and the vaginal swab of the other girl matched Forizul Rahman. Read with the medical evidence and witnesses who saw all three in the same jungle around 4 to 4.30 PM that day, the Court held that the chain was complete:
“In the present case, however, the principal incriminating circumstance is not based on suspicion or inference from mere presence it is the scientifically established biological linkage between the victims and the three accused.”
Grave crime, but no material on reformation
Turning to sentence, the Bench described the crime as “undoubtedly grave”, noting that the hanging of the bodies was an attempt to give the deaths the appearance of suicide. But it held that gravity is only one part of sentencing, and that life imprisonment remains the rule:
“The prosecution has not brought before us any material demonstrating that the appellants are beyond the possibility of reformation or rehabilitation. There is no evidence regarding their conduct in custody, antecedents, family circumstances, age-related circumstances, or other material that would establish that a sentence of imprisonment for life would be wholly inadequate. We cannot conclude that the possibility of reformation is foreclosed merely by the brutality of the crime.”
Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1, which recognises a special category of life imprisonment outside the ordinary remission framework, the Court held that the “appropriate balance” lay in imprisonment for the remainder of the convicts’ natural lives. It affirmed the conviction, declined to confirm the death sentence, and partly allowed the appeal to that extent.
Why The Kokrajhar Rape-Murder Judgment Matters
The ruling makes two points of wider importance. On evidence, it holds that a defence cannot discard DNA results by pointing to the general possibility of contamination or imperfect preservation; there must be material showing that the particular samples were actually contaminated, substituted or tampered with. On sentencing, it follows the Supreme Court’s insistence that death can be imposed only on evidence that reform is foreclosed, and places the burden on the prosecution to bring such material on record. Where it does not, the Sriharan route of life imprisonment without remission remains available to reflect the gravity of the crime.
If you know of a child in danger or distress, call CHILDLINE at 1098.
Case Title: Forizul Rahman and Others v. State of Assam and Another [Crl.A. No. 86 of 2022], with State of Assam v. Forizul Rahman and Others [Death Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2022]
Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:14164-DB
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, Gauhati High Court
Judgment reserved on: September 10, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Azad Ahmed, A.M. Ahmed and Arif Ahmed for the Appellants; Senior Advocate and Additional Public Prosecutor B. Bhuyan, assisted by Advocate R. Saloi, for the State; Advocate Sarfraz Nawaz for the Informant