Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Observing that the "last seen together" theory alone is not enough to sustain a conviction unless supported by other compelling evidence, the Supreme Court acquitted a man who was convicted just because the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the time gap between the last sighting and the death was unclear.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, citing significant flaws in the prosecution's case. As the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence, the Court found that the complete chain of circumstances had not been established, ultimately leading to the accused's acquittal.

“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 observed.

“This Court in Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 has held that evidence on 'last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of 'last seen together' without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC.”, the court added.

In this case, the accused was last seen with the deceased near a river and a cashew field. The following day, the deceased's body was found floating in the river. The prosecution's case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an eyewitness account placing the appellant with the deceased shortly before the incident, the recovery of a blood-stained stone near the body, and an alleged motive linked to suspicions of infidelity between the appellant's wife and a co-villager, which was claimed to have led to the cousin's (the deceased's) death.

The Court noted that the time gap between the last sighting and the death was unclear, and no exclusive opportunity was shown to link the accused with the crime conclusively.

Further, the blood-stained stone found near the body was neither forensically connected to the deceased nor recovered at the appellant's instance.

Also, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a motive on the Appellant's part, as if the Appellant had any doubt about her wife's chastity, he wouldn't have caused harm to his cousin with whom he had no animosity.

“In the case at hand also the only evidence against the appellant is of 'last seen together'. The evidence of motive does not satisfy us to be an adverse circumstance against the appellant inasmuch as if the appellant has any doubt about his wife's chastity, he would have caused injury or harm to his wife rather than to wife's cousin with whom he had no animosity. Moreover, the so-called weapon of the offence i.e. the stone has not been recovered at his instance nor there is any memorandum statement of the appellant.”, the court observed.

Noting that suspicion however so strong, would not replace the proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court found “that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises doubt that he may have committed murder but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the basis of evidence on 'last seen together'.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Case Title: PADMAN BIBHAR VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 613

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Manohar, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Mr. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv.