Circumstantial Evidence | Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Based On Last Seen Theory : Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Sokaram @ Chogaram v. State reaffirms the legal principle that circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain leading to the accused, can sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the last seen theory, when corroborated by recovery of incriminating material and absence of plausible explanation from the accused, meets the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This decision provides clarity on the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal trials, particularly in cases where direct evidence is unavailable.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case involves the brutal murder of Sonki, a 32-year-old woman, allegedly by her husband Sokaram @ Chogaram. The couple, married under the Nata tradition, resided at Otaram Chaudhary's bera (agricultural land) in Sadri, Rajasthan, where they had taken land on lease for cultivation. Sonki was found dead in a room at the bera on 08.11.2014, with multiple head injuries. The prosecution alleged that the accused had assaulted her following a quarrel on the night of 07.11.2014.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 09.11.2014: FIR No. 191/14 registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Sadri, Pali.
• 2015: Trial commenced before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bali, Pali (Sessions Case No. 1/2015).
• 06.02.2020: Trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹15,000.
• 2020: Accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 89/2020 before the Rajasthan High Court.

The Parties' Positions

• Appellant (Accused): Contended that the prosecution's case was based on fabricated evidence, hostile witnesses, and material contradictions. Argued that the last seen theory was unreliable and that the recovery of the weapon was doubtful.
• Respondent (State): Defended the trial court's judgment, asserting that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain leading to the accused's guilt.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the High Court was whether the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of the weapon, and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• The prosecution's case was built on hostile witnesses, including the complainant (PW-4 Nanaram) and the deceased's brothers (PW-13 Asharam and PW-14 Pakaram).
• The last seen evidence (PW-1 Hiralal) was unreliable, as the witness admitted to not being present at the scene during the incident.
• The recovery of the alleged weapon (shovel) was doubtful due to contradictions in the testimonies of the investigating officer (PW-17) and the recovery witnesses.
• The medical evidence suggested that the injuries could have been caused in a vehicular accident, casting doubt on the prosecution's theory.
• The accused raised an alibi, claiming he was in Mewar to hire labourers at the time of the incident.

For the Respondent

• The last seen evidence (PW-1 Hiralal) was consistent and unshaken, establishing that the accused was present with the deceased shortly before her death.
• The recovery of the blood-stained shovel at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was duly proved.
• The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed the presence of human blood on the shovel, blood-stained soil, and the deceased's blouse, linking the accused to the crime.
• The accused failed to provide any evidence in support of his alibi, rendering it untenable.
• The circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain, leaving no reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory. The Court relied on the following key observations:

1. Last Seen Theory and Burden of Proof The Court noted that the last seen theory is a well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence. In Dalip Malik v. State of West Bengal (AIR 2017 SC 1133), the Supreme Court held that when the deceased was last seen with the accused, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances thereafter. The Court further cited Satpal v. State of Haryana (AIR 2018 SC 2142), which held that while the last seen theory is weak evidence, it can form the basis of conviction when coupled with other circumstances and the accused's failure to explain under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

   "In the present case, the deceased was last seen alive with the accused inside the room situated at Otaram ka bera. The accused has offered no explanation as to the circumstances in which Sonki sustained fatal injuries. On the contrary, the prosecution has proved all relevant circumstances through cogent and reliable evidence, forming a complete chain leading to the only conclusion that the accused committed the offence."

2. Recovery of Weapon and Scientific Evidence The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the recovery of the shovel was doubtful. It observed that the recovery memo (Exhibit P-26) and the testimony of PW-1 Hiralal established that the blood-stained shovel was recovered at the instance of the accused. The FSL report (Exhibit P-27) confirmed the presence of human blood on the shovel, blood-stained soil, and the deceased's blouse, further linking the accused to the crime. The Court relied on Anees v. State Govt. of NCT (AIR 2024 SC 2297) to hold that even if recovery witnesses turn hostile, the evidence of discovery remains admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

3. Medical Evidence and Cause of Death The post-mortem report (Exhibit P-11) prepared by PW-5 Dr. Rajendra Punamiya confirmed that the deceased had sustained multiple incised wounds on her head and body, leading to excessive bleeding. The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the injuries were inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon, consistent with the recovered shovel.

4. Alibi and Absence of Explanation The Court rejected the accused's alibi, noting that no evidence was adduced to support his claim of being in Mewar at the time of the incident. The testimony of PW-1 Hiralal firmly established the accused's presence at the scene, and no suggestion was put to the witness during cross-examination to contradict this. The Court held that the accused's failure to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act strengthened the prosecution's case.

5. Principles of Circumstantial Evidence The Court applied the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ((1984) 4 SCC 116), which govern the assessment of circumstantial evidence:

   • The circumstances must be fully established.
   • The facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt.
   • The circumstances must be of a conclusive nature.
   • They must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved.
   • There must be a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the accused's innocence.

   The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances, leaving no reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.

The Verdict

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, recovery of the weapon, and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances, formed a complete chain leading to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of ₹15,000 were affirmed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Last Seen Theory Requires Corroboration

The judgment reinforces that the last seen theory alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Practitioners must ensure that it is corroborated by:

• Recovery of incriminating material (e.g., weapons, blood-stained clothes).
• Scientific evidence (e.g., FSL reports linking the accused to the crime).
• Absence of plausible explanation from the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Hostile Witnesses Do Not Necessarily Vitiate the Case

• Courts may rely on the core testimony of witnesses even if they turn hostile on peripheral aspects.
• Documentary evidence (e.g., recovery memos, FSL reports) can independently prove crucial facts.
• The conduct of the accused (e.g., leading to recovery of incriminating material) remains relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

Circumstantial Evidence Must Form a Complete Chain

• Prosecutors must establish each link in the chain beyond reasonable doubt.
• Defence counsel should scrutinize gaps in the prosecution's case, particularly:
  • Contradictions in witness testimonies.
  • Lack of scientific corroboration.
  • Failure to investigate alternative theories (e.g., alibi, third-party involvement).

Alibi Must Be Proved with Credible Evidence

• Mere assertion of an alibi is insufficient; the accused must adduce corroborative evidence (e.g., witness testimonies, documentary proof).
• Courts will reject alibi claims if they are unsupported or contradicted by other evidence.