Conviction Based Solely on "Last Seen" Is Unsustainable; Accused Acquitted for Lack of Corroboration

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal against a High Court judgment that had affirmed the Trial Court's conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC arising from the death of Yuvraj Singh Patle and the alleged burning of his body. The appeal challenged whether a conviction could rest solely on the "last seen together" theory in a case founded on circumstantial evidence.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Trial Court, holding that conviction could not be sustained on the sole basis of last-seen evidence where no complete chain of circumstantial evidence existed. The Court emphasised established principles governing circumstantial cases, including the five conditions set out in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, noting that these "constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises a doubt that he may have committed the offence but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the evidence of the last seen together. Be that as it may. It is a settled proposition that whenever any doubt emanates in the mind of the Court, the benefit shall accrue to the accused and not the prosecution. The present is a case where except for the evidence of last seen together, there is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained."

Background

The prosecution alleged that on 06-07 June 2004 the appellant, along with others, caused the death of tractor driver Yuvraj Singh Patle during a dacoity and thereafter attempted to burn the body to destroy evidence. The dead body exhibited multiple injuries and burn injuries; the medico-legal report recorded the cause of death as shock and burn injury and concluded the death to be homicidal. The appellant alone was convicted by the Trial Court on evidence including testimony of witnesses who said the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and on inferences about motive (to arrange money allegedly by looting a tractor). The High Court affirmed the conviction, relying principally on the "last seen together" testimony and the appellant's failure to offer a satisfactory explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

On appeal, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the circumstantial chain was incomplete, the material witnesses had infirmities in their depositions, and the prosecution failed to prove motive or other corroboration; the State relied on the Trial Court and High Court findings. The Supreme Court reviewed the law on circumstantial evidence, reiterating the five golden rules from Sharad Sarda and subsequent authorities that the proved circumstances must be "consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused" and must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The Court observed that the doctrine of "last seen" applied only where the interval between the last-seen point and discovery of death was so short that no one else could have committed the crime, and even then the last-seen circumstance alone was insufficient without corroborative links. The Court further noted the scope of Section 106 of the Evidence Act as an exception that may require explanation when a fact is especially within the accused's knowledge, but stressed that it did not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden. Finding that there was no other corroborative evidence besides the last-seen testimonies and that material aspects of motive remained unproved, the Court concluded that reasonable doubt persisted and accordingly acquitted the appellant. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1466 (Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2013) Case Title: Manoj @ Munna v. The State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Amicus Curiae for appellant (name not recorded in the judgment) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for State (name not recorded in the judgment)