The Supreme Court of India has set aside a conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that the prosecution’s reliance solely on the “last seen together” theory was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment, delivered by Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, overturned the findings of the Orissa High Court and the Trial Court, which had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of Akash Garadia, who was last seen on April 4, 2016, bathing at a river with two others and the appellant. According to witnesses, the deceased and the appellant subsequently went to collect cashew nuts but did not return. Akash’s body was discovered the following morning in the river. His father (PW-3) filed a First Information Report accusing the appellant of murder.
The police registered a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. A chargesheet was filed after investigation, and the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court, with the conviction later affirmed by the High Court.
Arguments
The appellant’s counsel argued that the evidence was purely circumstantial and failed to form a complete chain pointing conclusively to guilt. He noted discrepancies in the location of the body, a 20-hour delay in lodging the FIR, and an inconclusive chemical examination. The absence of motive and lack of any recovery or confession by the accused were also cited.
The State contended that the appellant was last seen with the deceased and that this fact, along with the recovery of a blood-stained stone near the body, supported the conviction.
Court’s Analysis
The Court reiterated the principle that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be proven. It held that the evidence of “last seen together” was the only incriminating circumstance, and cited Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715:
“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… is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC.”
The Court observed that the appellant neither confessed nor led police to the recovery of any weapon. The blood-stained stone found near the body was not recovered pursuant to any statement made by the accused, and no blood group matching was done. The forensic report was inconclusive.
Regarding motive, the Court noted that the prosecution introduced a suspicion of illicit relations involving the appellant’s wife. However, this theory was raised for the first time during trial and was not mentioned by key witnesses during investigation, making it unreliable.
Conclusion
The Court stressed that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof. Referring to Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (AIR 2013 SC 3817), it reiterated:
“Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof… In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof.”
The bench concluded:
“The present is a case where except for the evidence of ‘last seen together’ there is no other incriminating material against the appellant.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts and directed that the appellant be released if not required in any other case.
