Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Introduction:
The Supreme Court in this case reiterated that the "last seen together" theory, by itself, is not sufficient to convict an accused unless it is corroborated by other compelling evidence. The Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC due to major gaps in the prosecution's circumstantial evidence.
- Section 302 IPC(Now Section 102 of BNS,2023): Punishment for murder
- Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act(Now Section 23 of BSA,2023):: Regarding discovery based on confession
Facts of the Case:
The deceased was last seen with the appellant near a river and cashew field. The next day, the deceased's body was recovered floating in the river. Prosecution relied on an eyewitness placing the accused with the deceased shortly before the incident. A blood-stained stone was found near the body.
Motive alleged: suspicion of an illicit relationship between the appellant’s wife and a co-villager, who was also the cousin of the appellant (deceased).
The trial court convicted the appellant solely on circumstantial evidence, particularly on the "last seen" theory.
You can also read the blog of What is Sufficient Cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether the conviction based solely on the "last seen together" theory was sustainable in law?
- Whether the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant?
Contentions by the Petitioner:
The time gap between the last seen and recovery of the body was not clearly established. No evidence showed exclusive opportunity for the appellant to commit the crime. The blood-stained stone was not recovered at the appellant’s instance, nor was it forensically linked to the deceased. No memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was produced. The alleged motive was weak and unconvincing — the appellant had no direct enmity with the deceased.
Contentions by the Respondent:
The appellant was last seen with the deceased shortly before the body was discovered. A blood-stained stone near the scene was circumstantial proof of the murder weapon. The alleged motive was sufficient to establish intention — suspicion regarding his wife’s fidelity involving the deceased.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court emphasized the principle from Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715 that "last seen together" is a weak piece of evidence. In circumstantial evidence cases, each link in the chain must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Court noted:
- No clear time gap or exclusive opportunity was shown.
- The recovery of the stone was not tied to the appellant and lacked forensic evidence.
- Motive was speculative — if the accused doubted his wife, he might have acted against her, not her cousin.
The Court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted the appellant. The prosecution had failed to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence, and reliance solely on the “last seen together” theory was insufficient for conviction.
