Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with a disturbing case where a missing woman was later found dead in a burnt condition in a forest area. The case, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, raised serious concerns about reliance on last seen theory and recovery evidence in securing a conviction.
Brief Facts:
The deceased left her house on 23 March 2013 to visit her relatives and later went to the market. She was last seen with her elder brother and later allegedly with the other accused persons in a car. When she did not return home, her family lodged a missing complaint. After a few days, burnt skeletal remains including bones and a skull were found in a forest. Forensic examination confirmed that the remains belonged to the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped and murdered the deceased and burnt her body to destroy evidence. The motive was a financial dispute involving a loan of about 20 lakh rupees and gold jewellery which the deceased had given to her brother. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 364, 404, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, and the High Court upheld the conviction.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the Appellants argued that there was no reliable evidence connecting them to the crime and no clear motive against them. The counsel contended that the last seen evidence was weak as no proper identification procedure was conducted. The Appellant also argued that no recovery was made at their instance and the entire case was based on incomplete circumstantial evidence.
Contentions of the Respondent :
The State argued that the deceased was last seen with the accused and this strongly pointed towards their involvement. The counsel further contended that recovery of important articles and the existence of motive completed the chain of circumstances. According to the State, the evidence clearly established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Observation of the Court :
The Supreme Court carefully examined the case and emphasised that the entire prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence, which must form a complete and unbroken chain.
On the principle of circumstantial evidence, the Court reiterated that “the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”
On the last seen theory, the Court made it clear that it cannot by itself lead to conviction that “the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime.”
The Court noted that in the present case, the Appellants had no direct motive and their role was sought to be established only as accomplices. It observed that mere presence with the deceased, without strong corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain conviction.
Regarding discovery, the Court found serious issues in relying on joint disclosure statements and observed that recoveries were primarily linked to Accused No 1 and not the Appellants. The Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution case, particularly regarding the cause of death, which further weakened the chain of evidence.
The decision of the Court :
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances against the appellants. It concluded that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and the conviction of the Appellants was set aside, granting them the benefit of doubt.
Case Title: Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v State of Karnataka
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No 1864 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No 2180 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J B Pardiwala
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr Gurudatta Ankolekar and Mr Charudatta Mahindrakar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Avishkar Singhvi
Read judgement @latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
