Recently, the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a murder accused, holding that a conviction resting solely on the “last seen together” circumstance cannot be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence. Allowing the appeal, the Court held that “except for the evidence of last seen together, there is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant”, and therefore, such a conviction could not stand.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from the death of Yuvraj Singh Patle, whose body was found bearing multiple injuries, including ligature marks and severe burn injuries. Medical opinion attributed the death to shock and burns and classified it as homicidal. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Manoj @ Munna, along with five others, committed the offence and charged them under Section 302, Section 396, Section 201 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
While the Trial Court acquitted the other accused, it convicted the appellant by relying on the circumstance that he was last seen with the deceased and on an alleged motive of arranging money by looting a tractor. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction, drawing an adverse inference from the appellant’s failure to explain when he parted company with the deceased, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the entire prosecution case was built on circumstantial evidence and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The amicus curiae submitted that the evidence relied upon for the last seen theory was unreliable and suffered from contradictions. It was further contended that the alleged motive was not proved and that the same evidence had been disbelieved in respect of the other co-accused, making the appellant’s conviction legally unsustainable. The Appellant sought the benefit of doubt on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive link between him and the crime.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, on the other hand, defended the conviction, submitting that the evidence of last seen together, coupled with the homicidal nature of death and the appellant’s failure to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, was sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt. It was argued that both the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record.
Observation of the Court:
The Bench reiterated that "circumstantial evidence can be made the basis of conviction of an accused person if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt.”, and must form a complete chain excluding every other hypothesis.
The Court observed that the alleged motive of looting a tractor for money remained unproven, noting the absence of any evidence showing an attempt by the appellant to sell the tractor. Turning to the last seen theory, the Court acknowledged that witnesses had indeed deposed that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. However, it emphasised that this circumstance, by itself, could not form the sole basis of conviction.
The Court held that “a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased”, reiterating that the time gap and the absence of other incriminating links assume decisive importance. The Bench clarified that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not dilute the prosecution’s primary burden and “comes into operation only in situations where the prosecution has already established a reasonable inference against the accused”.
The Court observed that “We are of the opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises a doubt that he may have committed the offence but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the evidence of the last seen together.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, acquitting the appellant of the charges under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that where the chain of circumstances remains incomplete and lacks corroborative material, a conviction resting solely on the last seen together theory is legally unsustainable, and any lingering doubt must operate in favour of the accused.
Case Title: Manoj @ Munna Vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2013
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon'ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Advocate for the Appellant: AOR Md. Farman
Advocate for the Respondent: D.A.G. Praneet Pranav, . AOR Ravinder Kumar Yadav Advs. Vinayak Sharma, Kshitiz Agarwal, Yashvardhan Shah
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
