In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the principle that convictions cannot rely solely on the “last seen” theory, emphasizing the need for a robust chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The division bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Vikas Budhwar delivered the ruling on December 3, 2024, rejecting appeals challenging the acquittal of Sajid in a 2018 case involving the alleged abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a minor.
Background of the Case
The case originated from the disappearance of a 12-year-old girl in Ghaziabad on May 22, 2018. Her father, Sher Ali, filed an FIR three days later after extensive searches failed to locate her. Over a month later, skeletal remains, suspected to belong to the victim, were recovered based on a confession by Sajid, the accused. The trial court acquitted Sajid in March 2022 due to insufficient evidence, prompting appeals from the State of Uttar Pradesh (Government Appeal No. 728 of 2024) and the victim’s father, Sher Ali, under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Prosecution’s Claims
The prosecution argued that Sajid was the last person seen with the victim, as corroborated by two key witnesses, Muddashir (PW-2) and Junaid (PW-3). It asserted that the recovery of skeletal remains, clothing, and hair linked the crime to Sajid. The prosecution further emphasized that the accused’s confession and the identification of belongings by the victim’s family established guilt.
Court’s Observations
The High Court critically analyzed the evidence, highlighting significant gaps and contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative. It noted that the time gap between the victim’s disappearance and the recovery of remains—nearly two months—undermined the reliability of the “last seen” theory. The court further observed that:
1. Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies: PW-2 and PW-3 provided conflicting accounts of when they saw the victim and accused together.
2. Lack of Forensic Certainty: The DNA results were inconclusive, and reliance on clothing and hair for identification was insufficient to establish that the skeletal remains belonged to the victim.
3. Doubtful Recovery Process: The investigating officer failed to provide detailed records of the discovery and identification of the remains, raising questions about the credibility of the evidence.
Quoting legal precedents, the court reiterated that “conviction cannot be based solely on the ‘last seen’ theory without corroborating evidence.” It further emphasized that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution failed to create a complete and unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.
The judgment reinforced several principles governing criminal trials, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence:
– The chain of circumstances must be complete and exclude all other hypotheses except the guilt of the accused.
– The “last seen” theory, while significant, requires strong corroboration through other evidence.
– Courts must exercise caution when reversing acquittals, as the presumption of innocence is doubly reinforced in such cases.
Decision
The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, agreeing that the evidence was insufficient to prove Sajid’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The bench concluded, “Merely on the basis of ‘last seen together,’ the accused cannot be convicted when the prosecution fails to provide a conclusive link between the accused and the crime.”
The appeals by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the informant were dismissed, and the trial court’s acquittal of Sajid was affirmed.
