Reaffirming the Supreme Court’s position that “last seen together” is a weak form of circumstantial evidence, the Chhattisgarh High Court quashed convictions under Section 302/34 and 364 IPC when no additional credible evidence connected the accused to the crime. This ruling upholds existing law and limits the reliance on “last seen” situations as the singular basis for conviction in serious offences.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/370/2019 of BISAHU RAM HIDKO Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010069562019 |
| Date of Registration | 25-02-2019 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur |
| Bench | Justice Rajani Dubey, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha; Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Indian Penal Code, Evidence Act, Criminal Procedure Code) |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction can be sustained solely on “last seen together” evidence in the absence of corroboration. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The judgment holds that conviction based solely on the “last seen together” circumstance is unsustainable unless there is additional clinching and credible evidence that forms a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The testimonies of so-called eyewitnesses, who failed to disclose the incident promptly and whose evidence was marred by inconsistencies and delays, cannot be safely relied upon. The court relies on Supreme Court authority to underscore that “last seen” is a weak form of evidence and cannot singularly establish guilt, especially when there is a significant time gap between the accused’s company and recovery of the dead body. Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court engaged deeply with the principles set out by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the “last seen” theory unattended by other incriminating evidence, and where circumstantial links are broken by time gaps or doubts in witness credibility, cannot meet the threshold for criminal conviction. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The prosecution’s case rested on child and adult witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused taking away the deceased. However, these witnesses delayed reporting for several days, did not inform village authorities, and gave inconsistent statements. Forensic evidence was inconclusive, and the trial court acquitted the co-accused who allegedly facilitated the murder weapon’s discovery. The High Court found the circumstantial chain incomplete and the “last seen” evidence unreliable, leading to acquittal on benefit of doubt. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterates that conviction based solely on “last seen together” evidence, without immediate disclosure or corroboration, is impermissible.
- Delayed witness disclosures and their failure to promptly report observed incidents seriously undermine prosecution claims.
- Where gaps exist between “last seen” evidence and recovery of a victim, the possibility of third-party interference must be considered.
- Lawyers should scrutinize witness timelines, consistency, and promptness of report in similar circumstantial cases.
- Strong suspicion alone, absent a completed chain of evidence, is legally insufficient for conviction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court first established from medical and documentary evidence that the death was homicidal.
- The bench methodically examined testimony from three key prosecution witnesses (two children, one adult), noting their serious delays in reporting and inconsistencies.
- The Court pointed out that “last seen together” evidence, per recent Supreme Court interpretations (Padman Bibhar; Kanhaiya Lal), is by itself a weak circumstance and requires further corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction.
- Significant gaps (two days) between the time the deceased was last seen with the accused and the recovery of the body negated any conclusive presumption.
- Forensic evidence (such as bloodstains and semen) failed to connect the accused directly to the crime.
- The trial court’s reliance on surmise and shifting witness statements was deemed insufficient against the standard articulated by the apex court.
- The benefit of the doubt was thus afforded to the accused, leading to acquittal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- No eyewitness to the incident; case rests wholly on circumstantial evidence.
- The chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete.
- Conviction is based only on suspicion and “last seen” evidence; mere suspicion cannot substitute proof.
- Witnesses failed to support the prosecution consistently; time gap undermines “last seen” theory.
- Relied on Supreme Court judgments (Padman Bibhar, Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan).
Respondent (State):
- The trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence.
- “Last seen” evidence is sufficient in conjunction with proven motive (old enmity).
- Appellants failed to explain the circumstances or provide a plausible alternative narrative.
- Sought dismissal of the appeal.
Factual Background
On 13.12.2015, the husband of the deceased reported his wife missing after having been away for work. Witnesses later claimed to have seen the accused forcibly taking the deceased on the evening of 11.12.2015. The dead body was recovered two days later from a maize field. Prosecution’s case relied predominantly on the statements of two child witnesses and one adult, who delayed disclosure to authorities. No direct or forensic evidence conclusively linked the appellants to the crime. The trial court convicted the present appellants on the “last seen” theory; other accused were acquitted. The High Court appeal challenged the adequacy of such evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections interpreted: 302/34 IPC (murder with common intention), 364 IPC (kidnapping or abduction to murder).
- The court applied established Supreme Court doctrine that mere “last seen together” evidence is inadequate for conviction in serious criminal cases unless accompanied by corroborative evidence forming a complete chain (as explained in Kanhaiya Lal and Padman Bibhar).
- The court stressed the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt and articulated the need for clinching, credible, and timely evidence to establish the accused’s guilt in circumstantial cases.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- No dissenting opinion; both Justices delivered a concurring decision.
- Additional nuances provided in the judicial reasoning to reinforce strict evidentiary standards for circumstantial evidence cases, in alignment with apex court pronouncements.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court directed compliance with Section 437-A CrPC (furnishing of bonds for appearance in appellate proceedings).
- No other procedural innovations or new guidelines were issued in this case.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – This decision strictly follows and reinforces existing Supreme Court precedent on the evidentiary limitation of the “last seen together” theory in criminal jurisprudence.