Life Sentence Upheld for Killer Linked by Ballistics and Last‑Seen Evidence; Mobile Phone Recovery Doubtcast

A bench of Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Surya Kant heard an appeal against concurrent convictions imposed by a Sessions Court and upheld by the Karnataka High Court challenging the guilt and sentence of a man accused of murdering a friend with a double‑barrel gun and unlawfully possessing the weapon. The appeal tested the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, last‑seen testimony and ballistic linkage relied on by the prosecution.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the Arms Act, while modifying the prosecution’s case on one count of misappropriation in respect of a mobile phone. The Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence, supported by ballistic and forensic opinion and the appellant’s conduct, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused ... (the circumstances) should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.” The Court further noted that “these proved circumstances, considered individually or taken together, do not indicate the involvement of anyone else other than the appellant.”

Background The prosecution alleged that the appellant and the deceased were friends, had quarrelled over money and that on July 10, 2006 the appellant took the deceased into a sugarcane field and shot him with a 12‑bore double‑barrel gun. The dead body was discovered in a decomposed state three days later. Witnesses placed the pair together on the evening of July 10 (last‑seen testimony); the appellant was arrested on July 22 after a period of abscondence. During investigation the appellant led police to his grandfather’s house where a double‑barrel gun, spent cartridges and other articles were recovered; pellets and wads recovered from the skull were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The ballistic expert opined that the gun bore signs of discharge, was in working condition and that pellets and wads could have been fired from it.

The trial court convicted the appellant of murder (life sentence), misappropriation of a gold chain and offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; the High Court affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued gaps in last‑seen evidence, hostile witnesses, disputed recoveries and alleged infirmities in ballistic proof; the State relied on corroborative witness testimony, the forensic nexus and the appellant’s conduct (abscondence, misleading relatives) to sustain conviction. The Supreme Court reviewed the Sharad Sarda principles on circumstantial proof, accepted the medical and ballistic opinions linking the firearm to the injuries, and held that the cumulative circumstances excluded other hypotheses. The Court set aside the conviction only insofar as it related to recovery of the Nokia mobile phone (benefit of doubt) but upheld the murder conviction, arms‑offences convictions and the finding on misappropriation of the gold chain. Bail bonds were cancelled and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013 (2025 INSC 793) Case Title: Chetan v. The State of Karnataka Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): D.N. Goburdhun, Senior Counsel (for appellant) For the Respondent(s): Eesha Bakshi, Advocate (for State of Karnataka)