Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a man’s conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence, acquitting him after finding the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances. The case related to the homicidal death of a tractor driver, whose body was later recovered with burn injuries, with the prosecution alleging he was taken away shortly before he was found dead. The Court held that where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction cannot stand on the “last seen together” theory alone without independent corroborative material, and an adverse inference for lack of explanation cannot substitute the prosecution’s burden.

The criminal appeal arose from the conviction of an accused for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to the death of a tractor driver whose body was later found in a burnt condition. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with co-accused, committed dacoity and caused the homicidal death of the deceased. It was asserted that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased on the evening prior to the recovery of the body.

Also Read: Renewal Of Driving Licence After A Gap Will Not Relate Back To Date Of Expiry: Supreme Court Dismisses Candidates’ Pleas On Driver Posts Eligibility

The trial court convicted the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, primarily relying on the “last seen together” theory, medical evidence indicating homicidal death, and an alleged motive relating to looting of a tractor. The High Court affirmed the conviction, drawing an adverse inference from the accused’s failure to explain when he parted company with the deceased.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, the motive was unproven, and that conviction based solely on last seen evidence was impermissible. The State defended the conviction on the ground that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt.

The Supreme Court noted that “the case of the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence in the form of motive and last seen together, since there is lack of ocular version of the crime.” The Court reiterated the settled principle that circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction only if it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and excludes every other hypothesis.

Referring to established precedent, the Court recorded that “the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established” and that there is a clear distinction between what “may be proved” and what “must be or should be proved.”

On the issue of motive, the Court observed that “there is no further evidence on record to prove that after looting the tractor and committing the alleged murder of the deceased, the appellant has tried to sell the tractor for arranging money.” It held that in the absence of such evidence, the alleged motive was not established.

Examining the last seen theory, the Court noted that the prosecution evidence established that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused. However, it cautioned that “a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased.”

The Court further stated that “last seen theory comes into play where the time gap… is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible.” Even then, it clarified that this circumstance alone is insufficient without a complete chain of corroborative evidence.

Addressing Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court recorded that “Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the primary burden of proof, which in a criminal trial always remains on the prosecution.” It held that adverse inference can arise only after the prosecution establishes the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court concluded that “the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises a doubt… is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the evidence of the last seen together.”

Also Read: Law Applies Equally To State And Private Parties; No Delay Condonation Benefit For Government: Allahabad High Court

The Supreme Court directed that “the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court as well as the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC” be set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged against him.” Since the appellant was on bail, “his bail bonds stand discharged. The appeal is allowed accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Md. Farman, AOR Mr. Salman Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent State: :Mr. Praneet Pranav, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR

Case Title: Manoj @ Munna v State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1466
Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2013
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra