Recently, the Patna High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of two men accused of abducting, raping, and murdering an eight-year-old girl, while reaffirming the legal force of the “last seen” doctrine in criminal trials. The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Ansul held that once the prosecution successfully establishes that the deceased child was last seen alive in the company of the accused within a narrow time gap before her death, the burden shifts upon the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain the circumstances leading to the death. The Court made a striking observation that in such “damnifying circumstances,” silence or bald denial by the accused can become an additional link in the chain of incriminating evidence.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of an eight-year-old girl. According to the prosecution, the accused forcibly took the child from her home at night, and her body was later discovered in a nearby orchard. The medical examination confirmed brutal injuries, including evidence of sexual assault and death caused by asphyxia due to strangulation. Following an investigation, the accused were charged under Sections 376(A)/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial court, relying on the testimony of nine witnesses, including the victim's parents, eyewitness neighbors, and medical experts, convicted both individuals. They were sentenced to life imprisonment by the Special Judge (POCSO), Muzaffarpur. The matter is now before the High Court as a criminal appeal challenging this conviction and subsequent life sentence.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Counsel for the Appellants questioned the credibility of the prosecution's case, arguing that the FIR version was inherently improbable and that the allegation of the child being taken away from beside her sleeping mother appeared doubtful. The defence contended that prosecution witnesses had improved their statements during the trial and that inconsistencies in their testimonies weakened the case against the accused. The Counsel also argued that prior disputes relating to the litchi business provided a motive for false implication, while no direct evidence conclusively linked the appellants to the alleged rape and murder.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the State and the informant argued that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused, particularly through consistent witness testimonies supporting the “last seen” theory. The Counsel contended that the child was last seen alive with the accused shortly before her body was recovered and that the defence had failed to effectively challenge this evidence during cross-examination. Relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act and various Supreme Court precedents, the prosecution submitted that once the narrow time gap between the child being taken away and her death was established, the burden shifted upon the accused to explain the circumstances leading to her death.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Ansul observed that “The duty imposed on the appellants to prove their innocence when standing trial in an offence of murder arising from the doctrine of last seen has been judicially emphasized in a plethora of cases, few of which have been discussed above. Considering the judgments relied upon and the foregoing discussions , this court is of the view that it is the duty of the accused persons in such damnifying circumstances to give an explanation relating to how the deceased met her death and in the absence of such explanation, a trial court and even an appellate court will be perfectly justified in drawing the necessary inference that the accused persons must have killed the deceased.”
The Court observed that the prosecution had successfully established the “last seen” circumstance through the consistent testimonies of the parents of the deceased and other witnesses, who stated that the child was forcibly taken away by the accused persons during the night and was later found dead within a short span of time. The Bench noted that the time gap between the victim being last seen alive with the accused and the recovery of her dead body was merely around ten hours, which substantially reduced the possibility of intervention by any third person. The Court held that once such circumstances were proved, the burden shifted upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances in which the deceased parted company with them. The Bench further emphasised that the accused persons had failed to provide any explanation whatsoever, except making bald denials during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
The Court further observed that the defence had failed to effectively challenge the prosecution’s core case during cross-examination. The Bench pointed out that although the defence attempted to argue that prosecution witnesses had improved their versions during the trial, no substantial contradictions were extracted from the investigating officer to discredit those witnesses. The Court remarked that the crucial allegation regarding the accused taking away the child remained largely unchallenged during the trial. It also noted that no defence evidence was produced to probabilise any alternate theory regarding the death of the child. According to the Court, the failure of the defence to challenge the prosecution on material particulars significantly strengthened the prosecution’s version.
The Bench also emphasised the duty of trial courts under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to actively participate in proceedings in search of truth rather than functioning as passive spectators. The Court observed that trial judges possess wide powers to ask questions to witnesses at any stage if such questioning assists in uncovering the truth behind the occurrence. Referring to precedents including Bablu Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Munna Pandey vs. State of Bihar, the Court remarked that criminal trials involving grave offences require proactive judicial engagement to ensure that crucial facts are properly elicited on record. Even while making this observation, the Court clarified that the evidence already available on record sufficiently established the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court further held that the medical evidence fully supported the prosecution's story and conclusively established homicidal death caused by strangulation after sexual assault. The Bench relied upon the post-mortem findings showing bruises on the neck, rupture of the hymen, lacerated injuries in the vaginal region, and fracture of tracheal rings. The Court observed that the prosecution’s circumstantial chain remained complete and unbroken because there was no evidence suggesting the involvement of any other person or any alternate theory regarding the manner of death. The Bench concluded that the combination of the “last seen” circumstance, narrow time gap, medical evidence, and absence of explanation from the accused formed a compelling chain pointing solely towards their guilt.
The decision of the Court:
Holding that the prosecution had successfully proved the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court dismissed both criminal appeals and affirmed the conviction and life sentence imposed upon the appellants for offences under Sections 376(A)/34 and 302/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act. The Court concluded that the “last seen” circumstance, coupled with the narrow ten-hour gap between the abduction and recovery of the dead body, absence of any alternative theory, medical evidence establishing homicidal death, and complete failure of the accused to explain the circumstances, formed a complete and unbroken chain pointing exclusively towards guilt.
Case Title: Sanjay Bhagat Vs. The State of Bihar
Case No.: Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2017
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ansul
Advocate for the Appearance: Sr. Adv. Ramakant Sharma, Adv. Abhay Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Binay Krishna, APP Sri Sadanand Paswan, Adv. Anisur Rahman
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
