In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, has ruled that the ‘last seen’ theory cannot be invoked without definitive evidence and corroboration under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The ruling came as the court acquitted three individuals accused of kidnapping and murdering a minor, citing insufficient evidence and gaps in the chain of circumstantial proof.
Case Background
The case revolved around the alleged kidnapping and murder of a 14-year-old boy, Ishan, in Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. The victim was reported missing on September 4, 2018, by his father, Alimuddin Siddiqui. A missing person report was initially filed, which was later converted into a kidnapping case under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case escalated when Ishan’s body was discovered in Kanakpur Jungle on September 7, 2018.
Three individuals, Mohd. Israr Ahmad @ Raja (20), Md. Sahil Bari (18), and Mohd. Shamsher Khan (19), were arrested and charged under Sections 120-B, 363, 302, and 201 of IPC for conspiracy, abduction, murder, and destruction of evidence. They were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, on November 12, 2021.
Key Legal Issues and Court Observations
The High Court, while hearing Criminal Appeal No. 1579 of 2021 and connected appeals, examined the prosecution’s case, which was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including the ‘last seen’ theory and recovery of the deceased’s body.
Court’s Observations on the ‘Last Seen’ Theory
Weakness of the Last Seen Evidence:
The prosecution relied on three witnesses—PW/4 Ibran, PW/9 Mumtaz Ansari, and PW/18 Abu Bakar—who claimed to have seen the deceased with the accused. However, their testimonies were inconsistent and lacked proximity to the time of death.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nizam v. State of Rajasthan (2016), which held that last seen evidence must be conclusive and rule out any other possibilities.
Gaps in the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence:
The judgment emphasized the principle established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), which mandates a complete chain of circumstances leading to the accused’s guilt.
The High Court noted that the significant time gap between the alleged last sighting of the deceased and the recovery of his body weakened the prosecution’s argument.
Recovery of the Dead Body:
The prosecution argued that the deceased’s body was recovered based on disclosures made by the accused. However, the defense countered that the body was found in an open area accessible to villagers, diminishing the credibility of the prosecution’s claim.
Witnesses to the recovery, PW/5 Raghu Ray and PW/6 Mohd. Shamim, provided conflicting testimonies, further undermining the reliability of the evidence.
Failure to Establish Motive:
The prosecution claimed that the accused had conspired to kill the victim for ransom. However, there was no concrete evidence of a ransom demand.
The High Court ruled that if ransom was the motive, the accused would have likely kept the victim alive until their demands were met.
Court’s Decision and Precedent Set
Reversing the trial court’s verdict, the High Court observed:
“In the absence of definitive last seen evidence and considering the time gap between the alleged last sighting and the recovery of the dead body, the ‘last seen’ theory cannot be invoked without corroborative evidence under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
The court further ruled that where two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should be considered. As a result, the appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released immediately.
