Pappu Sahu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 243 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Pappu Sahu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                       1




                                                        2026:CGHC:11308-DB
                                                                         NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                            CRA No. 1226 of 2015

Pappu Sahu S/o Ramkumar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Birkoni, Police
Station Hirri, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
                                                              ...Appellant(s)
                                     versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Hirri,
District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
                                                     ---Respondent(s)

For Appellant                        : Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate

For Respondent/State                 : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L.

                Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge
                Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

                             Judgment on Board
                                  10/03/2026
Arvind Kumar Verma. J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of Criminal Proce-

dure Code 1973 is directed against the impugned judgment of convic-

tion and order of sentence dated 11.08.2015, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli (C.G.) in Session Trial No. H

34/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as

under:

                     Conviction                       Sentence

         Section 302      of   Indian Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.
         Penal Code                   1,000/-, in default of payment of
                                      fine, 01 month additional R.I.

         Section 201      of   Indian R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.
         Penal Code                   1,000/-, in default of payment of
                                      fine, 01 months additional R.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the informant Sanju Jaiswal, resident of

village Birkoni, appeared at Police Station Hirri on 25.05.2014 and

lodged an oral report stating that his brother Sanjay Jaiswal had left the

house on 21.05.2014 between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. without in-

forming anyone and had not returned till then. Despite searching for

him at the houses of relatives, he could not be traced. The missing per-

son was described as having a height of about 5 feet 6 inches, round

face, black hair, fair complexion, and he was wearing a black T-shirt

and blue jeans pant at the time he left the house. On the basis of the

said information, a missing person report No. 14/14 was registered at

Police Station Hirri as per Exhibit P-15. Thereafter, on 27.05.2014, the

Kotwar of village Daruwankapa, namely Janikdas, appeared at Police

Station Hirri and lodged a marg intimation stating that an unknown

male person aged about 30 years was lying dead in the vacant room of

Pardeshi Kaushle's Indira Awas. The deceased was wearing a black T-

shirt and blue jeans pant, and his face was not identifiable. On the ba-

sis of this information, Marg No. 31/14 was registered at Police Station

Hirri as per Exhibit P-8 and the marg inquiry was taken up. During the

course of marg inquiry, the identification proceedings of the dead body

were conducted as per Exhibit P-1 in the presence of Sanju Jaiswal

and Krishna Kumar Jaiswal, who identified the deceased as Sanjay

Jaiswal on the basis of the clothes and slippers worn by him. During

the marg inquiry, notices were issued to witnesses as per Exhibit P-2

for their presence at the time of preparation of the inquest (Naksha

Panchayatnama), which was prepared as per Exhibit P-3. The spot

map of the place of occurrence was prepared as per Exhibit P-4. As

per Exhibit P-11A, Constable No. 40-1032 Manharan was given the

post-mortem requisition (Exhibit P-14A) and the dead body was sent

for post-mortem examination to CHC Bilha, from where after post-

mortem the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-14) was received and an-

nexed with the case file. Thereafter, as per Exhibits P-11 and P-12, the

dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for last

rites. On suspicion, the accused Pappu Sahu was taken into police

custody and his memorandum statement (Exhibit P-5) was recorded,

wherein the accused stated that he had friendship with Sanjay Jaiswal

and used to have physical relations with him. After the marriage of San-

jay, the latter started demanding money from him and threatened that if

the money was not paid, he would defame him and kill him. Due to this

reason, the accused decided to eliminate Sanjay Jaiswal. Accordingly,

on 21.05.2014, he took Sanjay on his motorcycle, made him consume

liquor and took him inside the room of the Indira Awas, where he

pressed the nose and mouth of Sanjay with a red handkerchief, as a

result of which Sanjay died on the spot. On the basis of the disclosure

made by the accused, a motorcycle, handkerchief and clothes were

seized under seizure memo (Exhibit P-6). Thereafter, an FIR (Exhibit P-

20) was registered at Police Station Hirri under Section 302 of the In-

dian Penal Code vide Crime No. 108/14, and the accused was arrested

as per arrest memo (Exhibit P-7). Information regarding the arrest of

the accused was given to Ramkumar Sahu as per Exhibit P-16. Fur-

ther, articles from the place of occurrence were seized as per Exhibit P-

10. As per Exhibit P-13, Constable Manharan produced three sealed

containers, which were seized and the seized property was sent to the

Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, and acknowledgment receipts

(Exhibits P-18 and P-19) were obtained and placed on record. As per

Exhibit P-17, an application was sent to the Tahsildar, Patharia, on the

basis of which the spot map and panchnama (Exhibit P-9) were pre-

pared. During the remaining course of investigation, statements of wit-

nesses were recorded and after completion of the entire investigation,

a charge-sheet was prepared and filed before the Court of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Mungeli.

3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted be-

fore the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the

trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which ap-

pellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating

that he has not committed the offence.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many

as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited documents. How-

ever, the appellant in support of his defence has not examined any

document.

5. The trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and

sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this

judgment against which he has preferred the instant appeal under Sec-

tion 374(2) of the CrPC.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is

absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the

aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to prove the offences

beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that except the evidence

of PW-2 Maniram PW-4 Parmeshwar and Dr. S. Gadhewal (PW-10),

there is no other evidence available on record to connect the appellant

with the crime in question.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has

failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Learned counsel further submits that the case of the prosecution rests

entirely on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence to

connect the appellant with the alleged crime. It is also argued that the

chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is not complete

and does not unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant.

8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that the

memorandum statement of the appellant and the seizure allegedly

made pursuant thereto have not been proved in accordance with law

and the same cannot be safely relied upon. Learned counsel also sub-

mits that the alleged motive attributed to the appellant has not been

satisfactorily established by the prosecution. It is argued that there are

material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecu-

tion witnesses, which create serious doubt about the prosecution story.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the trial Court

has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and

has convicted the appellant on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

It is therefore prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and or-

der of sentence passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the

appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

9. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and

submits that the prosecution has brought home the offence against the

appellant and has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and thus,

the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced for the afore-

said offences.

10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their ri-

val submissions made herein-above and also went through the record

with utmost circumspection.

11.The prosecution has alleged that the accused/appellant committed the

murder of Sanjay Jaiswal. Therefore, the first and foremost question

that arises for consideration is whether the death of the deceased was

homicidal in nature.

12.In order to establish the same, the prosecution has relied primarily

upon the medical evidence of PW-11 Dr. S. Gadewal and the post-

mortem report (Ex.P-14). From the perusal of the post-mortem report

as well as the testimony of the doctor, it emerges that the body brought

for examination on 27.05.2014 was in a highly decomposed condition.

The doctor has noted that the body was putrefied, foul smelling and

maggots were present. The skin had peeled off from several parts of

the body and the eyes had liquefied. The organs inside the body had

also undergone decomposition. Significantly, the doctor has categori-

cally stated that due to the advanced stage of putrefaction, the cause

and mode of death could not be ascertained. Thus, the medical evi-

dence does not establish that the death was homicidal.

13.The condition of the body also raises doubt regarding the identity of the

deceased. The prosecution claims that the body was identified by rela-

tives, however the body was in a highly decomposed state. In such cir-

cumstances, reliable identification becomes doubtful unless supported

by scientific examination. Admittedly, the prosecution did not conduct

any DNA test or other scientific examination to conclusively establish

that the body recovered was that of Sanjay Jaiswal.

14.When the cause of death itself could not be determined and the identity

of the body is not established with certainty, it becomes difficult to con-

clusively hold that the death in question was homicidal. Accordingly,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to

establish beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was

homicidal in nature.

15. The trial Court in paragraph21 of its judgment recorded following find-

ings:-

"The incident is stated to have taken place on 21.05.2014, when

the deceased Sanjay Jaiswal left his house and did not return

thereafter. A report regarding his disappearance was subse-

quently lodged as a missing person report on 25.05.2014 by

Sanju Jaiswal at Police Station Hirri, which has been exhibited as

Exhibit P-15. Thus, the report was lodged about five days after

the deceased had left the house. It is quite natural that during

this period the family members of the deceased were searching

for him at the places of their relatives and acquaintances. There-

fore, the report came to be lodged after some delay. Such delay

does not adversely affect the prosecution story, as in such cir-

cumstances it is natural that family members would first make ef-

forts to trace the missing person before approaching the police

station. Hence, no undue advantage can be extended to the ac-

cused on the ground of delay in lodging the report.

Witness Ramphool Kori (PW-9), the Patwari, prepared the spot

map of the place of occurrence. Further, R.L. Bagh (PW-13) and

Dinesh Tomar (PW-14) have proved the investigation proceed-

ings through their respective testimonies before the Court. Al-

though certain contradictions and omissions have been brought

on record during their cross-examination, the same are minor in

nature and do not affect the core of the prosecution case, nor do

they confer any benefit upon the accused.

From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is established

that prior to the incident dated 21.05.2014, the deceased Sanjay

Jaiswal and the accused Pappu Sahu were acquainted with each

other and had close relations, and it has also come on record

that they had physical relations prior to the marriage of the de-

ceased. About one month prior to the incident, the deceased had

got married, after which disputes arose between the deceased

and the accused regarding money. Thereafter, on 21.05.2014,

the deceased Sanjay Jaiswal went towards Lukukapa on the mo-

torcycle of the accused and did not return thereafter. Subse-

quently, on 27.05.2014, the dead body of the deceased Sanjay

Jaiswal was found in a vacant house of Indira Awas situated in

village Daruwankapa.

During the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the

defence has not brought on record any material evidence which

could create doubt about the prosecution story. In the present

case, the circumstances established by the prosecution form a

chain of circumstantial evidence which links the accused with the

death of the deceased Sanjay Jaiswal. The circumstances estab-

lished on record, when taken together, point towards the involve-

ment of the accused in the incident. It has also been established

that after the death of the deceased, the accused left the body in

the vacant house of Indira Awas situated in village Daruwankapa,

with the intention of causing disappearance of evidence.

Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as

the circumstantial evidence available on record, it is established

that on 21.05.2014 the accused caused the death of Sanjay

Jaiswal and thereafter attempted to cause disappearance of the

evidence by leaving the dead body at the said place. Accordingly,

the accused is held guilty for the offences punishable under Sec-

tions 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code."

16.A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court

would show that the trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant

on the basis that the appellant and the deceased Sanjay Jaiswal were

last seen together on 21.05.2014, when the deceased was seen going

on the motorcycle of the appellant towards Lukukapa. Thereafter, the

deceased did not return, and subsequently on 27.05.2014, the dead

body of the deceased was found in a vacant house of Indira Awas situ-

ated in village Daruwankapa. On the basis of this circumstance, the

trial Court has drawn an inference against the appellant and recorded

the conviction.

17.It has been found established by the trial Court and it has not been dis-

puted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on 21.05.2014, the

deceased Sanjay Jaiswal was seen going on the motorcycle of the ap-

pellant Pappu Sahu towards Lukukapa, and thereafter the deceased

did not return to his house. Subsequently, when the deceased was not

seen and his whereabouts could not be traced, a missing person report

was lodged by Sanju Jaiswal, brother of the deceased, at Police Sta-

tion Hirri on 25.05.2014, which was registered as Ex.P-15. Thereafter,

on 27.05.2014, a marg intimation was registered at the instance of

Janikdas, Kotwar of village Daruwankapa, at Police Station Hirri to the

effect that the dead body of an unknown person was found lying in a

vacant house of Indira Awas situated in village Daruwankapa, which

was registered as Marg No. 31/14 (Ex.P-8). During the course of marg

inquiry, the dead body was identified by Sanju Jaiswal and Krishna Ku-

mar Jaiswal as that of Sanjay Jaiswal on the basis of the clothes and

slippers worn by him. Thereafter, on the basis of suspicion against the

appellant, his memorandum statement (Ex.P-5) was recorded and cer-

tain articles including a motorcycle, handkerchief and clothes were

seized pursuant thereto vide Ex.P-6. Subsequently, FIR (Ex.P-20)

came to be registered at Police Station Hirri under Section 302 of the

IPC vide Crime No.108/14, and thereafter the investigation com-

menced. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of

the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed

against the appellant. Relying upon the said circumstances, particularly

the circumstance of the deceased having been last seen in the com-

pany of the appellant, the trial Court has recorded the incriminating cir-

cumstances and ultimately convicted the appellant for the offences un-

der Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, which conviction has been chal-

lenged by the appellant in the present criminal appeal.

18.PW-4 Parmeshwar has stated that on 21.05.2014 he had seen Sanjay

Jaiswal sitting on the motorcycle of the accused Pappu Sahu and going

towards Lukukapa.

19.The next question for consideration would be, whether the prosecution

has proved that the appellant was last seen with the deceased or that

the offence was committed by the appellant?

20.In the matter of Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa1, the Supreme Court

has noted the fact that at the stage of inquest, the important incriminat-

ing circumstance namely, the deceased was last seen in the company

of the accused, was not noted and that is not there in the inquest re-

port. Thereafter, in that view of the above fact and other evidence on

record, their Lordships have held that the deceased was last seen in

1 (1991) 3 SCC 27

the company of the accused is not established beyond reasonable

doubt.

21.In the matter of Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar2, it has been held by

their Lordships of the Supreme Court that conviction cannot be made

solely on the basis of theory of 'last seen together' and observed in

paragraph 31 as under :-

"31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to though a number of witnesses have been examined be the evidence of the appel- lants having been seen last together with the de- ceased. But it is settled law that the only circum- stance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is con- sistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that ba- sis alone can be founded."

22.Likewise, in the matter of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran3, the

Supreme Court has held that the circumstance of last seen together

would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possi-

bility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the

place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening

period. It was observed in paragraph 34 as under :-

"34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with

2 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 3 2007 3 SCC 755

when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the ac- cused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person be- ing with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the de- tection of the crime would be a material consider- ation for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the ac- cused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the ac- cused persons and the deceased last seen to- gether and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evi- dence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, be- comes impossible, then the evidence of circum- stance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the in- tervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the ac- cused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively

wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case. "

23. Similarly, in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan4, their

Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the circumstance

of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the infer-

ence that it was the accused who committed the crime and there must

be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and

the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant in our

considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the ap-

pellant. It has been held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as under :-

"15. The theory of last seen - the appellant hav- ing gone with the deceased in the manner no- ticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of cir- cumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situa- tion bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan1.

16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the impugned judgment and sentence. This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appel- lant-accused Kanhaiya Lal are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt. He is directed to be released from the custody forthwith unless required otherwise."

4 2014 4 SCC 715

24.In the matter of Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam 5, their Lord-

ships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that in a case where

other links have been satisfactorily made out and circumstances point

to guilt of accused, circumstance of last seen together and absence of

explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain.

In absence of proof of other circumstances the only circumstance of

last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation, cannot be

made basis of conviction.

25.In the matter of Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Po-

lice6, the Supreme Court has held that though the evidence of last

seen together could point to the guilt of the accused, but this evidence

alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the ac-

cused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration, and ob-

served in paragraph 22 as under: -

"22. PW 11 was able to identify all the three accused in

the court itself by recapitulating his memory as those

persons who came at the time when he was washing

his car along with John Bosco and further that he had

last seen all of them sitting in the Omni van on that day

and his testimony to that effect remains intact even dur-

ing the cross-examination in the light of the fact that the

said witness has no enmity whatsoever against the ap-

pellants herein and he is an independent witness.

Once the testimony of PW 11 is established and in-

5 2017 14 SCC 359 6 2018 16 SCC 161

spires full confidence, it is well established that it is the

accused who were last seen with the deceased spe-

cially in the circumstances when there is nothing on

record to show that they parted from the accused and

since then no activity of the deceased can be traced

and their dead bodies were recovered later on. It is a

settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the

person, who was last seen with the deceased, would

have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the

same lies on the accused to prove that they had de-

parted. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an impor-

tant event in the chain of circumstances that would

completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of

the accused with some certainty. However, this evi-

dence alone cannot discharge the burden of establish-

ing the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and

requires corroboration."

26.In the matter of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and another7, their

Lordships of the Supreme Court found that there was considerable

time gap of approximately 8½ hours when the deceased was last seen

alive with the accused persons and their Lordships held that there be-

ing a considerable time gap between the persons seen together and

the proximate time of crime, the circumstance of last seen together,

even if proved, cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt on the accused.

7 (2007) 3 SCC 755

27.In the instant case also, the deceased Sanjay Jaiswal is alleged to

have been last seen with the appellant on 21.05.2014, when he was

seen going on the motorcycle of the appellant towards Lukukapa,

whereas the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 27.05.2014

from a vacant house of Indira Awas situated in village Daruwankapa.

As such, there is a considerable time gap between the alleged last

seen circumstance and the time when the dead body of the deceased

was recovered. Therefore, it cannot be held that only the appellant is

the perpetrator of the offence and, in the absence of any reliable cor-

roborative evidence, it cannot be concluded that the appellant is the

author of the crime.

28.In the present case, the prosecution has attempted to rely upon the cir-

cumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of the ap-

pellant. However, the evidence brought on record does not conclusively

establish the proximity of time between the alleged last seen circum-

stance and the death of the deceased.

29.The alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 21.05.2014,

whereas the dead body was recovered on 27.05.2014. Thus, there ex-

ists a considerable gap between the alleged last seen circumstance

and the recovery of the body. It is settled law that the last seen theory

can be safely applied only when the time gap between the accused

and the deceased being last seen together and the death is so small

that the possibility of intervention by any other person is completely

ruled out. In the present case, such proximity is not established.

30.The prosecution has also relied upon the memorandum statement of

the appellant made before the police, pursuant to which a motorcycle,

a T-shirt and a handkerchief are stated to have been recovered. How-

ever, these articles are ordinary articles of common use and the prose-

cution has failed to establish any definite nexus between these articles

and the alleged crime. No forensic examination has been brought on

record linking these articles with the deceased or with the commission

of the offence.

31.Further, there is no eyewitness account to the alleged occurrence and

the prosecution has not produced any other reliable circumstance

which could form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the ap-

pellant.

32.When the evidence on record is considered as a whole, it becomes

clear that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of

circumstances. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do

not lead to the only conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the alleged

offence. In a criminal trial the burden always lies upon the prosecution

to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion,

however strong, cannot take the place of proof.

33.It is respectfully submitted that the identification of the deceased in the

present case is highly doubtful and unreliable. As per the medical evi-

dence and the post-mortem report (Ex.P-14), the body recovered on

27.05.2014 was in a highly decomposed and putrefied condition, with

skin peeled off from several parts of the body, foul smell emanating

therefrom and maggots present, making facial recognition impossible.

In such circumstances, the alleged identification of the deceased by the

relatives merely on the basis of clothes and slippers cannot be treated

as conclusive or reliable. The prosecution has not conducted any sci-

entific examination such as DNA profiling or any other forensic test to

establish beyond doubt that the body recovered was that of Sanjay

Jaiswal. In the absence of such reliable scientific evidence, the identifi-

cation of the deceased remains doubtful, which creates a serious dent

in the prosecution case.

34.In light of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Supreme Court

particularly, in Anjan Kumar Sarma (supra), it is quite vivid that the

prosecution has only established that the appellant was last seen with

the deceased and no other connecting links have been satisfactorily

made out and no other incriminating circumstance which leads to the

hypothesis of guilt against the appellant has been proved. Even the

prosecution in the present case has failed to prove the death of the de-

ceased to be homicidal in nature. As such, in absence of poof of other

circumstances or chain of circumstances, only the theory of 'last seen

together' cannot be made the sole basis for conviction of the appellant

as it would be unsafe to rest conviction only on the theory of 'last seen

together'. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned

trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant under

Section 302 and 201 of the IPC only on the basis of the theory of 'last

seen together' finding it fully established in absence of motive for offence

on the part of the appellant and in absence of other incriminating material

against the appellant in light of the principles of law laid down by their

Lordships of the Supreme Court in Arjun Marik (supra), Sanjay

Thakran's case (supra) and Kanhaiya Lal (supra).

35.We hereby set aside the conviction so recorded and the sentences so

awarded by the trial Court to the appellant vide the impugned judgment

dated 11.08.2015. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section

302 and 201 of the IPC. Since the appellant is already on bail, his bail

bonds shall continue for a period of six months in terms of Section 481

of BNSS Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita of 2023.

36.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be

transmitted to the trial Court concerned and concerned Jail Superinten-

dent for necessary information and action.

37. Sd/- Sd/-

           (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                   (Arvind Kumar Verma)
                Judge                                    Judge




Jyoti