Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-001129-001129 – 2013 |
| Diary Number | 33430/2011 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE |
| Precedent Value | Binding Authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established precedents on circumstantial evidence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC, Evidence Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction on Sections 302 and 201 IPC can rest solely on the last-seen-together theory without a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that in purely circumstantial cases a conviction cannot be based solely on last-seen-together: the prosecution must fully establish every link, exclude all innocent hypotheses, and, under Section 106 Evidence Act, the accused must satisfactorily explain separation from the deceased. Doubts must be resolved in the accused’s favor. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased was last seen with the appellant during a tractor-ride; body found burned next day; no direct eyewitnesses; prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence of motive and last-seen; trial courts convicted on last-seen theory alone. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts in India |
| Persuasive For | Criminal courts applying circumstantial evidence standards |
| Follows | Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (established five-golden-rule framework for circumstantial evidence) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court reaffirms that last-seen-together alone is a weak circumstance and insufficient for conviction.
- Reinforces the five golden principles from Sharad Sarda for circumstantial-evidence cases.
- Clarifies that under Section 106, Evidence Act, once last-seen-together is proved, the accused must provide a reasonable explanation for parting—failure strengthens but does not replace prosecution’s burden.
- Emphasizes that benefit of doubt always accrues to the accused where circumstantial chain is incomplete.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Nature of Evidence
- Case rests purely on circumstantial evidence: motive and last-seen-together; no ocular testimony.
- Autopsy proved homicidal death by burn injuries.
-
Principles of Circumstantial Evidence
- Cites Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984): five mandatory conditions for circumstantial proof.
- Relies on Umedbhai Jadavbhai (1978): no circumstance can favor innocence.
-
Evaluation of Motive
Alleged motive (funds to recover a jeep) unsubstantiated: no evidence of tractor sale or use of proceeds.
-
Last-Seen-Together Theory
- Witnesses PW-18 and PW-20 placed appellant last with the deceased.
- Doctrine requires short time gap and complete chain; alone it cannot convict.
-
Burden under Section 106 Evidence Act
- Once last-seen-together is proved, accused must offer a reasonable explanation for separation.
- Failure to do so bolsters inference but does not shift primary burden from prosecution.
-
Benefit of Doubt
Court found no other incriminating link beyond last-seen. Doubt resolved in favor of appellant → acquittal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Chain of circumstances is incomplete and suffers contradictions.
- Same evidence rejected for co-accused—reliance on it here causes discrimination.
- Last-seen testimonies (PW-18, PW-20) are unreliable.
- Motive unproved; no link to sale or use of looted tractor.
- Entitled to benefit of doubt.
Respondent (State)
- High Court and Trial Court rightly held that last-seen-together plus other circumstances suffice for conviction.
Factual Background
Between 06–07 June 2004, the deceased driver was last seen in the company of the appellant and another accused while transporting a tractor. The next day the body—showing burn and ligature injuries—was recovered. The appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on a case built purely on motive and last-seen-together circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness to the homicide.
Statutory Analysis
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 302 (Murder)
- Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 106: places onus on a person to prove facts especially within his knowledge—e.g., explanation for separation when last-seen.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed