The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms settled Supreme Court law that a conviction for murder based solely on the “last seen together” theory, without corroborative evidence forming a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, is impermissible; lack of proof of motive, investigative lapses, and inconsistencies in witness testimony further weaken such cases. This judgment upholds existing precedent, clarifies the evidentiary standards in circumstantial cases, and is binding authority for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1060/2015 of Chaitram and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010275112015 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2015 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
| Precedent Value | Binding for subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents on “last seen together” theory and circumstantial evidence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code, Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction for murder based solely on the “last seen together” theory without corroborating circumstances satisfies the legal standard in circumstantial evidence cases |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the “last seen together” theory is a weak piece of circumstantial evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless there is corroboration that forms a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused. In this case, the alleged ‘last seen’ witnesses were found unreliable and inconsistent. The prosecution failed to establish motive or verify key electronic evidence. The investigation suffered serious deficiencies, including delay in FIR and improper recovery of evidence. Thus, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and benefit of doubt must go to the accused. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The deceased was found hanging from a tree; prosecution alleged the accused had strangled him and hanged the body to destroy evidence. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the “last seen together” circumstance and alleged motive. Key witness testimonies conflicted, electronic and physical evidence was not properly verified, and investigation suffered from significant lapses, including delay in FIR. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and may be cited before the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the “last seen together” circumstance, without corroboration, cannot be the sole basis for conviction in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence.
- Explicitly requires the prosecution to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
- Highlights that motive must be proved or at least strongly suggested in cases relying entirely on circumstantial evidence.
- Draws attention to the necessity of properly verifying electronic evidence and investigating recoveries with due diligence.
- Acknowledges that unexplained delays in FIR and major investigative lapses can severely weaken the prosecution’s case.
- Offers practical grounds for defence counsel to challenge convictions based solely or primarily on the “last seen together” theory.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the reliability of “last seen together” witnesses and found inconsistencies and gaps in their testimonies, ruling out this circumstance as a credible link.
- The court applied Supreme Court precedents (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Arjun Marik, Sanjay Thakran, Kanhaiya Lal, Anjan Kumar Sarma, Rambraksh @ Jalim), consistently holding that “last seen together” is a weak piece of evidence and not sufficient for conviction without corroboration.
- Motive was found to be vague, unverified, and lacking corroboration, especially significant in a circumstantial case.
- Investigative deficiencies were emphasized, including failures to verify ownership and use of recovered electronic items and delays in lodging FIR.
- The court recalled the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda regarding proof in circumstantial cases, and found the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances.
- The court held that, with the prosecution failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit must go to the accused.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
- The circumstantial evidence relied upon is weak and incomplete.
- No credible proof of the “last seen together” circumstance.
- Motive not established; link between accused and evidence not properly proven.
- Call details and electronic evidence were not properly proved in law.
- Relied on Supreme Court decisions (including Arjun Marik, Sanjay Thakran, Kanhaiya Lal, Anjan Kumar Sarma, Rambraksh @ Jalim).
Respondent/State
- Prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- Asserted that conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were justified and should be upheld.
Factual Background
The deceased (Dukhi Ram) was found hanging from a tree near a mining camp. The prosecution alleged the accused had murdered him by strangulation and then hanged the body to destroy evidence, motivated by personal disputes and alleged illicit relationships. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, with a focus on the “last seen together” theory. Key witnesses gave inconsistent versions of events, and the investigation into recoveries, electronic evidence, and the sequence of events contained critical lapses, including a significant and unexplained delay in filing the FIR.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (Murder), Section 201 IPC (Causing Disappearance of Evidence), Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy), Section 34 IPC (Common Intention): Charges were framed and analysed, with the court noting the requirements for proof in circumstantial murder cases.
- Section 374(2) CrPC: Appeal provision invoked.
- Evidence Act: Emphasized standards for proof of circumstantial evidence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There was no dissenting opinion. Both judges (Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) concurred in the operative reasoning and decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment directed compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C., requiring appellants to furnish bonds for appearance in the event of further appeals.
- No other procedural innovations were noted.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment meticulously follows and reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedent on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen together” theory.