Supreme Court Acquitted Man Convicted Solely on 'Last Seen Together' Theory, Cites Failure of Circumstantial Chain

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal by special leave against the Orissa High Court's affirmation of convictions under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, challenging whether reliance on the "last seen together" circumstance and other incriminating threads formed a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a murder conviction.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, holding that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the prosecution's case rested principally on the circumstance that the appellant was last seen with the deceased and that other incriminating material was either absent or inconclusive. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and none else. Further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused." The Court further recalled the settled principle that "suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof," emphasising that mere conjecture or the presence of a strong suspicion did not suffice to convict.

Background The prosecution alleged that on 4 April 2016 the appellant accompanied the deceased to a riverside and cashew grove; the deceased did not return and his body was found floating in the river the next morning. An FIR named the appellant for allegedly killing the deceased and disposing of the body. The police registered PS Case No. 37 of 2016 and charged the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. At trial the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and produced medical and chemical reports and one material object (a blood-stained stone). Key witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 said they had gone to bathe with the deceased and saw the appellant join; they later returned to the village without the deceased. PW-3 (the informant and father) lodged the FIR after discovering the body. The autopsy (PW-17) indicated homicidal death by skull fracture. The chemical examination was inconclusive as blood grouping did not match conclusively, and the stone alleged to be the weapon was not recovered on the appellant's disclosure nor linked by a memorandum statement; no weapon recovery at his instance was proved.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant relying on the 'last seen together' theory, motive alleged by some witnesses and recovery of the stone near the body; the High Court affirmed. On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence against established principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and related authorities and found that the "last seen" testimony stood largely alone without other cogent, corroborative circumstances completing the chain. The Court noted authorities stressing that last-seen evidence "does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime" and reiterated that conviction could not rest on suspicion. Applying those principles, the Court held the circumstantial chain was incomplete and that suspicion remained where proof was required. The appeal was allowed, the convictions under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and directed to be released if not required in any other case.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 751 Case Title: Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Manohar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shovan Mishra, Advocate