Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict | Says ‘Last Seen Together Is A Weak Link’ And ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ | Slams Lower Courts For Conviction Without Conclusive Evidence
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof in a criminal trial, leading to the acquittal of a man previously convicted for murder under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by both the Trial Court and the High Court, observing that the prosecution’s case rested solely on the “last seen together” theory without sufficient corroborative evidence. The Bench concluded that the conviction could not stand in the absence of a complete and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.
In setting aside the conviction, the Court underscored that legal proof must be established through clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence and that suspicion alone is insufficient to uphold a criminal conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed his release, stating that he be set at liberty if not required in any other case.
The incident that gave rise to the proceedings occurred on 4 April 2016 when the informant’s son, Akash Garadia, accompanied by Budhadeba Garadia (PW-1), Susanta Kusulia (PW-2), and the appellant, had gone to the river near their village to bathe. Thereafter, the appellant and the deceased reportedly went to a nearby cashew field to collect cashew nuts. When neither of them returned for an extended period, PW-1 and PW-2 went back to the village, whereupon the informant, Kalia Garadia (PW-3), inquired about his son. PW-1 and PW-2 claimed that upon questioning the appellant, he responded that the deceased would never return and threatened to kill them if they disclosed this to anyone.
PW-3 then approached the appellant, who denied any knowledge of the deceased's whereabouts. PW-3, accompanied by co-villagers, searched the riverside but could not locate his son. The following morning, 5 April 2016 at around 6:00 a.m., PW-3 discovered the deceased's body floating in the river. He subsequently lodged an FIR (Exhibit-1), alleging that the appellant had murdered his son and disposed of the body in the river.
The case was registered as P.S. Case No. 37 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC at the Muniguda Police Station. Lakshman Majhi (PW-19), the Investigating Officer, took up the investigation, after which a chargesheet was filed against the appellant. Charges were formally framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and submitted 10 documents. Among these, PW-1 and PW-2 were identified as independent witnesses who accompanied the deceased to the river; PW-3 was the informant and father of the deceased; and other witnesses included relatives, co-villagers, and officials involved in the investigation. The appellant, however, did not examine any witness in his defence. During his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant denied the allegations and reiterated that he had been falsely implicated.
The Trial Court found the appellant guilty under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, primarily relying on circumstantial evidence including the "last seen together" theory, the presence of motive, and the alleged recovery of a blood-stained stone purportedly used as the weapon. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for the murder charge and two years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 under Section 201 IPC.
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack affirmed the Trial Court's findings, accepting that the cumulative circumstantial evidence established the appellant's guilt.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant, through counsel, contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and failed to conclusively connect him to the offence. It was further argued that there was a delay of 20 hours in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the location of the body, and no direct evidence implicating the accused.
On the other hand, the State argued that the “last seen together” evidence, supported by the conduct of the accused and other circumstantial elements, was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
The Court recorded that "in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime was committed by the accused and none else." It further observed that the facts proved "should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused."
The Bench referred to precedents including Ramanand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, stating that "perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world and absolute certainty is a myth."
In analysing the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the Court noted inconsistencies regarding the presence of villagers at the bathing ghat and the behaviour of the appellant. It was noted that "this conduct of the appellant suggests that he did not run away from the village nor admitted his guilt as probably he had nothing to hide."
The Bench scrutinised the evidence provided by PW-13, who claimed that the appellant returned alone after going with the deceased, and provided speculative reasoning about motive. However, the Court observed that "this fact about motive is narrated by him for the first time in court hence the same cannot be relied upon." Furthermore, "PW-3, father of the deceased, has not stated anything about the motive."
Regarding the recovery of the stone, the Court stated that "the same is not in consequence of any memorandum statement of the appellant." The Court added, "Even the chemical examination report is inconclusive although human blood was found on the shirt and on the stone, but the blood group was not matched."
The judgment cited Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, where it was held that "evidence on ‘last seen together’ is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of ‘last seen together’ without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused."
It also referred to Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh, noting that "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."
In the words of the Court, "suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that ‘may be’ proved, and something that ‘will be proved’."
The Supreme Court concluded its analysis by holding that "the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises doubt that he may have committed murder but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the basis of evidence on ‘last seen together’."
In categorical terms, the Court declared, "we set aside the impugned conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and the Trial Court and acquit the appellant for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC."
The Court directed that "the appellant be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case." Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shyam Manohar (Arguing Counsel), Advocate; Ms. Manju Jetley, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Mr. Shovan Mishra, Advocate-on-Record
Case Title: Padman Bibhar vs. State of Odisha
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 751
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 17440 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
[Read/Download order]
