The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot rest solely on the "last seen" circumstance when corroborative evidence is absent, forensic links are unproven, and witness testimony is unreliable. This judgment reinforces the foundational principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rohit alias Gudda Sahu, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Panna, on 29.02.2024 under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Babua and under Section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the alleged "last seen" testimony and recovery of a blood-stained stone and a jacket (jarkin). The prosecution sought life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each count, with default sentences of three months simple imprisonment.
Key Facts
- The deceased, Babua, was last seen alive on or about 08.01.2023 in the company of the appellant.
- The dead body was discovered on 11.01.2023 near a nala in village Semariya.
- A stone (Article 'F') was recovered from an open jungle area on 11.01.2023, allegedly used as the murder weapon.
- A black motorcycle was recovered, contrary to witness Shyam Singh’s (PW-10) testimony that the vehicle was red.
- A jacket (jarkin, Article 'I') was recovered from the appellant’s residence, allegedly worn during the incident.
- The FSL report (Ex.P/26) confirmed human blood on the stone but found no match between the blood group on the stone and the jacket.
- No fingerprint analysis was conducted on the stone to link it to the appellant.
- No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted for any of the "last seen" witnesses.
- The appellant was arrested on 11.01.2023.
Procedural History
- 08.01.2023: Alleged last sighting of deceased with appellant.
- 11.01.2023: Discovery of dead body; recovery of stone and jacket.
- 11.01.2023: Arrest of appellant.
- 29.02.2024: Sessions Court, Panna, convicts appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
- 13.05.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 7563 of 2024 heard and decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- The recovery of the stone was from an open, public place with no forensic link to the appellant.
- The FSL report failed to establish that the blood on the stone matched the blood group on the jacket.
- The "last seen" witnesses were unreliable: none knew the deceased or appellant personally; none identified them at TIP; some admitted to signing police statements under hearsay.
- The motorcycle color contradicted witness testimony.
- No independent evidence corroborated the prosecution’s narrative.
For the Respondent/State
- The testimony of four witnesses (PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-10) established the last seen circumstance.
- The recovery of the stone and jacket, coupled with the FSL report, formed a complete chain of circumstances.
- The trial court rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on all charges, release from custody, and setting aside of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.
The Legal Issue
Can a conviction under Section 302 IPC be sustained solely on the "last seen" circumstance, when the recovery of the alleged weapon lacks forensic linkage, no TIP was conducted, and witness testimony is inconsistent and uncorroborated?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on Manoj alias Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2858) and Jabir and others v. State of Uttarakhand (2023) 16 SCC 111 to argue that the chain of circumstances must be complete, unbroken, and incapable of any other reasonable explanation. He emphasized that the absence of TIP, mismatched motorcycle color, lack of blood group correlation, and unreliable witness testimony rendered the prosecution’s case speculative. The evidence of last seen was further undermined by the father’s admission that he did not witness the deceased leaving home.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor contended that the cumulative testimony of four witnesses established the last seen circumstance and that the recovery of the stone and jacket, supported by the FSL report, completed the chain. He argued that minor inconsistencies in witness statements were immaterial and did not invalidate the overall narrative.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of each witness’s testimony and the physical evidence. It found that the father of the deceased (PW-2) admitted he was not present when the deceased left home, thereby rendering his "last seen" testimony inadmissible. PW-4, who claimed to have witnessed the recovery of the jacket, admitted he signed all documents at the police station and relied on hearsay. PW-5, who claimed to have seen the altercation, admitted she did not know either party and was not present at the scene when the incident occurred. PW-10’s testimony about the red motorcycle was directly contradicted by the actual recovery of a black one.
"The chain of circumstances must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
The Court noted that the FSL report confirmed human blood on the stone but found no match with the blood group on the jacket. No fingerprint analysis was conducted on the stone. The recovery location - an open jungle near a nala - made it impossible to establish exclusive possession or connection to the appellant.
The Court emphasized that the "last seen" doctrine has limited application and cannot be the sole basis for conviction, particularly where the time gap is not narrow and no corroborative evidence exists. The absence of TIP, the unreliability of witnesses, and the lack of forensic linkage rendered the prosecution’s case fundamentally defective.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The judgment and order dated 29.02.2024 of the Sessions Judge, Panna, in S.T. No. 43/2023, was set aside. The appellant, Rohit alias Gudda Sahu, was acquitted of all charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC. The appellant, who was in custody, was directed to be released forthwith, unless detained in any other case. The trial court record was to be sent back immediately. All pending applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Last Seen Evidence Requires Corroboration
- Practitioners must now insist on independent corroboration - forensic, documentary, or eyewitness - before relying on "last seen" testimony in murder cases.
- Absence of TIP or identification parade renders "last seen" testimony legally insufficient.
Forensic Gaps Invalidate Circumstantial Chains
- Blood group mismatches, lack of fingerprint analysis, or unverified recovery locations will now be treated as fatal flaws in circumstantial cases.
- Prosecution must establish a direct, verifiable link between the accused and the alleged weapon or clothing.
Judicial Scrutiny of Witness Credibility Is Non-Negotiable
-
Courts will not overlook admissions of hearsay, illiteracy, or lack of personal knowledge by witnesses.
-
Testimony from individuals who did not witness the event firsthand, or who signed police documents without understanding them, will be discounted.
-
Always challenge the completeness of the circumstantial chain in appeals.
-
File applications for TIP where identity is contested.
-
Demand forensic reports before trial and highlight gaps in analysis during arguments.
