Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence | Last Seen, Ballistic Trail And Absconding Form Unbroken Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the conviction and life sentence of an individual found guilty of murder, affirming concurrent decisions by the Karnataka High Court and the Fast Track Court-II, Belgaum. The appellant had sought reversal of his conviction under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and under Sections 3 and 5 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The apex court found no grounds for interference, stating that the findings of the lower courts were based on cogent circumstantial evidence and did not suffer from perversity or manifest illegality. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of life imprisonment was confirmed.
The judgment restated legal principles governing appellate interference in cases of concurrent factual findings, especially those based on circumstantial evidence. The Court invoked settled jurisprudence stating that it would interfere only where there is misreading, ignoring of material evidence, or grave miscarriage of justice. The decision underscores the binding nature of evidentiary chains under the "last seen" doctrine, recovery of incriminating material, and scientific corroboration from ballistic and forensic evidence.
The prosecution case originated from an incident on 10 July 2006, when the deceased, Vikram Sinde, failed to return home after leaving in the evening. The appellant and the deceased were friends, and it was alleged that the appellant bore a grudge over an unpaid loan of Rs. 4000 lent to the deceased. On the night of the incident, the appellant purportedly took his grandfather’s double-barrel 12 Bore gun under the pretext of hunting and rode off with the deceased on a motorcycle. The deceased was later found dead in a sugarcane field in Shahapur village on 13 July 2006.
The FIR was lodged after the dead body was discovered in a decomposed state and later identified based on clothing and articles such as a handkerchief and a motorcycle key. A police investigation ensued, leading to the arrest of the appellant on 22 July 2006. According to the prosecution, the appellant confessed to the crime and led police to recover key items: the murder weapon, a gold chain and mobile phone belonging to the deceased, and the location where the deceased had been shot.
Key prosecution witnesses included the deceased’s brother (PW-12), a friend (PW-11), an auto driver (PW-4), and two others (PW-3, PW-5) who testified to seeing the deceased last in the company of the appellant. Forensic experts confirmed that the gun was operational and had been recently discharged. The ballistic report matched the gun to the injuries sustained by the deceased.
The trial was conducted before the Fast Track Court-II and Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. On 29 March 2007, the appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC, criminal misappropriation under Section 404 IPC, and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Arms Act, punishable under Sections 25 and 27 respectively. The sentence included life imprisonment and additional terms of rigorous imprisonment for each offence, all to run concurrently.
On appeal, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the case on 6 December 2010, affirming the conviction. It relied upon the credibility of the witnesses, forensic corroboration, and absence of alternative explanations by the appellant. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reiterated that it would not re-appreciate evidence unless there existed "manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence."
“It is not the practice of this Court to re-appreciate the evidence... It is only in rare and exceptional cases... that this Court would interfere with such finding of fact.”
The Court reviewed the circumstantial evidence in totality. It found the death to be homicidal based on medical and ballistic evidence.
“The Medical Officer, PW-28, who conducted the post-mortem had given his final opinion that the cause of death was ballistic injuries to vital organs... there cannot be any shadow of doubt about the unnatural death due to gunshot injury.”
The Court found the last seen theory sufficiently established through multiple independent testimonies: “PW-5 reiterated in his cross-examination that he saw the deceased and the appellant together... Thus, his evidence is trustworthy as regards this aspect.”
Further, the Court rejected the defence’s challenge to witness credibility, stating: “Merely because a witness happens to see an occurrence by chance, his testimony cannot be eschewed... If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses.”
On the issue of the time gap weakening the last seen theory, the Court relied on forensic timing of death: “As per the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem... the death occurred 3/4 days before the postmortem examination which is consistent with the time the deceased was seen last together with the appellant.”
Regarding recovery of the weapon, the Court noted: “A double barrel gun with 2 spent and 1 live cartridges were recovered at the instance of the appellant... Pellets and wads recovered from the skull could have been fired from the gun examined.”
The Court also took note of the appellant’s post-offence behaviour: “The appellant remained hidden from 11.07.2006 till 22.07.2006... indicative of the guilty mind of the appellant.”
The scientific and testimonial chain, as per the Court, was unbroken: “All the circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant have been proved which would only lead to the inference that the appellant and appellant alone was responsible for murdering the deceased.”
The Supreme Court held that there was no material illegality committed by either the Trial Court or the High Court in appreciating the evidence against the appellant. It recorded that no gross injustice had been caused due to misreading or ignoring of any material evidence.
“We are of the view that no material illegality has been committed by the Trial Court and the High Court in appreciating the evidence against the appellant nor it can be said that any gross injustice has been caused to the appellant by the impugned judgment by misreading or ignoring any material evidence.”
The Court, however, partially allowed the appeal to the limited extent of setting aside the conviction under Section 404 of the IPC concerning the recovery of the Nokia mobile phone, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant. However, it sustained the conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder, under Section 404 IPC with respect to the misappropriation of the gold chain, and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for unlawful possession and use of the firearm.
“We... sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 404 of the IPC as regards murder of the deceased and misappropriation of gold chain by the appellant and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for unlawful possession and use of the gun.”
The Court thus dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench passed on 06.12.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2007 to the extent indicated.
“The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad... is upheld to the extent indicated above.”
Consequently, the Court directed that the appellant’s bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant, who had been released on bail, was directed to surrender before the Trial Court immediately to undergo the remaining period of sentence as affirmed by the High Court.
“The appellant who had been released on bail is directed to surrender before the Trial Court forthwith to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mrs. Rajani K. Prasad, Advocate; Mr. B. K. Prasad, Advocate; Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Advocate-on-Record
For the Respondents: Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, Additional Advocate General; Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Omar Hoda, Advocate; Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Advocate; Mr. Kamran Khan, Advocate; Mr. Arjun Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Jayanti Singh, Advocate; Ms. Gurbani Bhatia, Advocate
Case Title: Chetan v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 793
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.1568 of 2013
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
[Read/Download order]
