The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that the doctrine of 'last seen together' cannot form the sole basis for convicting an accused in a homicide case. In a meticulously reasoned judgment, the Court set aside convictions under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC, emphasizing that even strong suspicion, absent corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime, falls short of the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The prosecution alleged that on 7 August 2013, between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. the next day, the appellants Ashok Toppo @ Babu and Amit Bhagat @ Pintu murdered Kishore Goswami @ Golcha at Parsagudi village. The body was allegedly disposed of in the septic tank of Sukhnath Bhagat, father of Amit Bhagat. The prosecution claimed the appellants acted in common intention and attempted to conceal the crime.
Procedural History
- 7 August 2013: Alleged murder and disposal of body
- 8 August 2013: Body recovered from septic tank; FIR registered (Ex.P-12)
- Post-mortem conducted (Ex.P-19) by Dr. A.P. Gupta (PW-11), concluding homicidal death due to hemorrhagic shock and injuries to neck and head
- Investigation: Blood-stained iron spade, motorcycle, Nokia mobile phone seized from Amit Bhagat; iron angle, jeans, wooden stick seized from Ashok Toppo
- Trial Court (16 March 2017): Convicted both appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently
- Appeal filed: Both appellants challenged the conviction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought acquittal on grounds that the prosecution failed to establish the theory of last seen together beyond reasonable doubt, lacked corroboration, and did not prove the connection between seized articles and the crime.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be sustained solely on the circumstance of last seen together, absent corroboration, proof of exclusive possession, or a conclusive link between the accused and the weapon or crime scene.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the appellants relied on Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police, Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, and Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha to argue that the theory of last seen together is merely a circumstance, not conclusive proof. They emphasized the 29-hour gap between last sighting and discovery of the body, absence of motive, no independent eyewitnesses, and failure to establish ownership of the seized mobile phone or blood group matching on the iron spade. They contended that mere recovery of articles under memorandum statements, without forensic confirmation, cannot establish guilt.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the post-mortem report, recovery of incriminating articles, and the location of the body in the father’s house established a chain of circumstantial evidence. It argued that the absence of explanation by the accused and the proximity of the accused to the victim at the time of disappearance were sufficient to infer guilt, citing State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran to support reliance on last seen theory even with a time gap.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the doctrine of last seen together as interpreted by the Supreme Court. It held that while the theory is a relevant circumstance, it cannot by itself discharge the prosecution’s burden under Section 101 of the Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that corroboration is indispensable.
"The evidence of last seen together cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration."
The Court noted the 29-hour gap between the last sighting and discovery of the body, which the prosecution failed to explain by proving that no third party could have accessed the deceased during that period. The Court distinguished this from cases where the accused had exclusive possession of the location or where the time gap was minimal and the scene was isolated.
Regarding the seized articles, the Court held that the blood-stained iron spade lacked forensic confirmation of blood group matching the deceased. The Nokia mobile phone was not proven to belong to the deceased through IMEI records or purchase documents. The iron angle seized from Ashok Toppo was not supported by the seizure witnesses. The Court cited Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh and Mustkeem Alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan to underscore that recovery without linkage to the crime is insufficient.
The Court also rejected the inference that the body’s location in Sukhnath Bhagat’s house automatically implicated Amit Bhagat, noting that ownership of the house was not established. The prosecution’s failure to examine any witness or exhibit any document in defense did not shift the burden of proof.
The Verdict
The appellants won. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the theory of last seen together, without corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction for murder. The convictions under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC were set aside, and both appellants were acquitted and released on bail, with their bonds remaining valid for six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Last Seen Alone Is Never Enough
- Practitioners must now insist on corroborative evidence - forensic, digital, or eyewitness - when relying on last seen theory
- Prosecutors cannot rely on time gaps alone; they must prove exclusion of third-party involvement
- Defense counsel should challenge convictions where the only link is proximity in time, especially if motive is absent or relationship was cordial
Forensic Linkage Is Mandatory
- Recovery of weapons or personal effects under memorandum statements is insufficient without forensic matching (e.g., DNA, blood group, IMEI)
- Mobile phones, clothing, or tools must be proven to belong to the victim or used in the crime through documentation or expert testimony
- Courts will no longer accept speculative inferences from seized items without scientific validation
Burden of Proof Remains With Prosecution
- The absence of defense evidence does not shift the burden to the accused
- Courts must apply the benefit of doubt strictly when circumstantial chains are incomplete
- This judgment reinforces that reasonable doubt is not a technicality - it is a constitutional safeguard
