The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of an accused sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, ruling that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the “last seen together” circumstance without other corroborative evidence completing the chain of circumstances.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that while the “last seen” theory raises a doubt, it is not conclusive proof of guilt in the absence of other incriminating links. The Court acquitted the appellant, Manoj @ Munna, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the judgment dated May 11, 2011, passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had affirmed the Trial Court’s decision convicting the appellant under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution, on June 7, 2004, the appellant, along with five co-accused, allegedly committed dacoity and caused the death of the deceased, Yuvraj Singh Patle. The prosecution alleged that on the previous day, June 6, 2004, the appellant had taken the deceased on his motorcycle from Salhevara, and the deceased was subsequently found dead.
The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW-13) confirmed that the death was homicidal, caused by shock and burn injuries. The body bore burn injuries of 2-3 degrees, ligature marks, and lacerated wounds.
While the Trial Court acquitted the five co-accused, it convicted Manoj @ Munna relying primarily on the testimonies of witnesses Bedram (PW-18) and Chamru Singh (PW-20) regarding the “last seen” theory. The Court held that the appellant had murdered the driver to loot the tractor and burnt the body to destroy evidence. The High Court upheld this conviction, noting that the appellant failed to offer an explanation as to when he parted company with the deceased.
Arguments
The Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant argued that the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. It was submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, and the evidence regarding the “last seen” theory was unreliable. The counsel highlighted that similar evidence was rejected against the five acquitted co-accused, leading to discrimination against the appellant.
Conversely, the counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh contended that the evidence of “last seen together” had been duly proved and, along with other incriminating circumstances, was sufficient to convict the appellant.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the case rested purely on circumstantial evidence: motive and the “last seen together” theory.
On Motive: The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive. The prosecution claimed the appellant looted the tractor to arrange money to retrieve his jeep. However, the Court noted, “In the absence of evidence that the appellant attempted to sell the tractor, the theory of appellant trying to arrange money to get his jeep back is not established.”
On “Last Seen Together”: The Bench acknowledged that the testimonies of PW-18 and PW-20 established that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant and a co-accused. However, the Court reiterated the legal position that this circumstance alone is insufficient.
Referring to the precedent in Rambraksh vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2016), the Court observed:
“To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.”
The Court also cited Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2014), holding that evidence on last seen together is “weak evidence” and requires corroboration.
On Section 106 of the Evidence Act: Addressing the High Court’s reliance on the appellant’s failure to explain when he parted ways with the deceased under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court clarified that this provision does not shift the primary burden of proof from the prosecution.
Citing Sabitri Samantaray vs. State of Odisha (2023) and Anees vs. State Government of NCT (2024), the Bench held that Section 106 applies only when the prosecution has successfully established a chain of events leading to a reasonable inference against the accused.
“If the accused fails to present a credible explanation regarding facts within his special knowledge, this failure constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence established against him,” the Court stated, adding that it does not absolve the prosecution of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision
The Court concluded that apart from the evidence of being last seen together, there was no other corroborative evidence against the appellant.
“The present is a case where except for the evidence of last seen together, there is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained,” the Bench held.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, and acquitted the appellant.
Case Details:
Case Name: Manoj @ Munna v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2013
Citation: 2025 INSC 1466
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
