The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the conviction of two accused in a murder case, emphasizing that the 'last seen together' theory cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborative circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The Verdict
The appellants won. The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted both accused of charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that conviction based solely on the 'last seen together' theory, without additional incriminating circumstances establishing a conclusive link to the crime, is legally unsustainable. The appellants were ordered released, subject to furnishing personal bonds under Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Background & Facts
On 29 September 2018, the body of Sushil Baghel was discovered in an open area near Gaurav Garden, Raipur. A postmortem conducted by Dr. M. Nirala (PW-16) concluded that the death was homicidal, caused by injuries likely inflicted by a sharp or blunt object. The investigation led to the arrest of Jamuna Soni and Vinay @ Vikky, with a third accused, Akash Sahu, remaining absconding. Jamuna Soni allegedly confessed to conspiring with Vinay and Akash to murder Sushil Baghel and to destroying evidence by concealing his shoes and the murder weapon.
The prosecution recovered a pair of sports shoes and a mobile phone from Jamuna Soni, and a bloodstained knife from Vinay @ Vikky, pursuant to their memorandum statements. The only witness to the last known sighting of the deceased alive was Naeem Khan (PW-8), who claimed to have seen Sushil Baghel with Jamuna Soni on the night of the incident. However, he testified that the deceased fled the scene after an altercation involving two unidentified boys, one of whom had his face covered. The prosecution did not produce any eyewitnesses to the actual murder.
The trial court convicted Jamuna Soni and Vinay @ Vikky, acquitting Akash Sahu on benefit of doubt. The appellants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied heavily on the 'last seen together' theory and the recoveries, while the defense argued that the evidence was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and failed to exclude other possibilities.
The Legal Issue
Can a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 or Section 120-B of the IPC be sustained solely on the 'last seen together' theory, when there are no eyewitnesses, no direct evidence of the crime, and the recoveries lack forensic linkage to the deceased?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The appellants’ counsel contended that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence as required by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. They argued that Naeem Khan’s testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies in timing, lack of clarity regarding the assailants’ identities, and the fact that the deceased fled voluntarily. The recovery of the knife showed no blood traces of the deceased, and the shoes and mobile phone were found in public areas, making their connection to the crime speculative. The hostile testimony of memorandum witnesses further undermined the credibility of the recoveries. The defense emphasized that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that 'last seen' alone cannot form the basis of conviction.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the 'last seen together' theory, when combined with the recoveries and the postmortem report, formed a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. It contended that the delay in discovery of the body did not invalidate the theory, as the prosecution had ruled out the possibility of any third party being involved. The State relied on State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran to argue that a long time gap is not fatal if the prosecution proves exclusive control over the deceased’s movements. It maintained that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and that the appellants’ failure to offer an explanation supported the inference of guilt.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and applied the five-pronged test laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the death was homicidal, but held that this alone was insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants.
"The circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty... when it is established that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out."
The court found that Naeem Khan’s testimony did not meet this standard. His account was vague, inconsistent, and failed to establish that the accused had exclusive control over the deceased after their last meeting. The fact that the deceased fled the scene, as per the witness’s own testimony, introduced a reasonable possibility of third-party involvement. The court further noted that the knife recovered from Vinay @ Vikky had no forensic link to the deceased’s blood, as confirmed by the FSL report. The recovery of the shoes and mobile phone from public areas, coupled with hostile memorandum witnesses, rendered these items unreliable as incriminating evidence.
The court emphasized that mere non-explanation by the accused cannot substitute for positive proof of guilt. Citing Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam, the court held that the 'last seen' theory, without any other corroborative link - such as motive, prior hostility, recovery of weapon with forensic evidence, or a consistent timeline - cannot complete the chain of circumstantial evidence.
"In absence of proof of other circumstances the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation, cannot be made basis of conviction."
The court concluded that the prosecution had not excluded every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. The conviction was therefore based on suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment reinforces the principle that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete, unbroken chain of facts that point exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The 'last seen together' theory remains a relevant circumstance but cannot be the sole foundation for conviction. Practitioners must ensure that such cases are supported by additional corroborative evidence - such as forensic links, recovery of incriminating items with scientific verification, or a clear timeline excluding third-party involvement.
The judgment also clarifies that hostile witnesses do not automatically invalidate recoveries, but when combined with other weaknesses, they can fatally undermine the prosecution’s case. Defense counsel may now more confidently challenge convictions based on 'last seen' evidence where no other incriminating links exist. Prosecutors, on the other hand, must avoid over-reliance on this theory and must build a robust evidentiary structure that excludes all reasonable alternatives.
This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence and will serve as a binding precedent in Chhattisgarh and persuasive authority elsewhere for cases involving circumstantial evidence in homicide trials.
