In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently overturned the conviction of an appellant in a murder case, emphasizing that the "last seen together" theory alone is insufficient to establish guilt in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment, delivered on May 21, 2025, highlighted the rigorous standards required to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

The Prosecution's Case:

The case originated from an incident on April 4, 2016, when the deceased, Akash Garadia, went to a river to bathe with Budhadeba Garadia (PW-1), Susanta Kusulia (PW-2), and the appellant. After bathing, the appellant and Akash reportedly went to a cashew field to collect cashews. PW-1 and PW-2 returned to the village, but Akash and the appellant did not. When inquired, the appellant allegedly told PW-1 and PW-2 that Akash would never return and threatened them if they disclosed this fact. The next day, Akash's dead body was found floating in the river, leading to an FIR lodged by his father, Kalia Garadia (PW-3), accusing the appellant of murder and disposal of the body.

Charges and Trial Proceedings:

The appellant was charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, including PW-1 and PW-2 (independent witnesses), PW-3 (informant/father of deceased), and the Investigating Officer (PW-19). The Trial Court, relying on the "last seen together" evidence, recovery of a weapon, and motive, convicted the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and two years for causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack affirmed this conviction.

Arguments in the Supreme Court:

Mr. Shyam Manohar, counsel for the appellant, argued that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and did not conclusively link the appellant to the crime. He pointed out the absence of direct evidence, a 20-hour delay in lodging the FIR, inconclusive chemical examiner's evidence regarding blood group matching, and discrepancies in the recovery location of the dead body. Crucially, he contended that all relevant incriminating circumstances were not put to the appellant during his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, and there was no proven motive.

Conversely, Mr. Shovan Mishra, representing the State, maintained that both the Trial Court and High Court had correctly concluded that the "last seen together" evidence, combined with other incriminating circumstances, was sufficient for conviction.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Ruling:

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the evidence against the backdrop of established principles for circumstantial evidence, particularly referencing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984), which mandates a complete and conclusive chain of evidence pointing unerringly to the accused's guilt and excluding all other hypotheses.

The Court noted several weaknesses in the prosecution's case:

• 'Last Seen Together' Evidence: While PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3's testimonies indicated the appellant and deceased were last seen together, contradictions emerged regarding whether other villagers were present at the bathing ghat and when exactly PW-1 and PW-2 returned. Furthermore, the appellant's conduct of accompanying PW-3 in search of the deceased suggested he had nothing to hide.
• Motive: The motive presented by PW-13 (Mahadev Sikaka) – that the appellant suspected his wife's illicit relations with the deceased – was introduced for the first time in court, without a prior statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Court found this motive unconvincing, reasoning that if such anger existed, it would likely be directed at his wife rather than her cousin, with whom he had no known animosity.
• Recovery of Weapon: The stone allegedly used in the murder was recovered near the dead body, but not at the instance of the appellant or as a result of any memorandum statement by him. The Investigating Officer confirmed that the appellant neither admitted guilt nor led to the recovery of the weapon or dead body.
• Forensic Evidence: The chemical examination report, though confirming human blood on the shirt and stone, was inconclusive as the blood group was not matched.

Citing Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) and Rambraksh Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated that "last seen together" is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction without other corroborative evidence. The Court emphasized that there must be "something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime."

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that while the circumstantial evidence raised suspicion, it was not conclusive enough to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Reaffirming the principle that "suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute the proof," the Court set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court and Trial Court, acquitting the appellant. This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the high burden of proof on the prosecution in circumstantial evidence cases, particularly when relying on the "last seen together" theory.

Section 201., Indian Penal Code - 1860

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860