Last Seen Theory Alone Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three In 1996 Double Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court last week set aside the conviction of 3 men in a 1996 double murder case while observing that a conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained solely on the "last seen together" theory/evidence unless every link in the chain of circumstances is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.The Court found that in this case, the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances and that the trial court had wrongly relied on unreliable "last seen" evidence and a doubtful recovery of the alleged murder weapons.A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi thus allowed the criminal appeal by 3 convicts (originally 6 convicts had approached the HC) challenging the 2000 judgment of the trial court sentencing them to life imprisonment.While the appeal had abated against 3 appellants who died during its pendency and 1 appellant had been declared a juvenile, the Court acquitted the surviving appellants [Shiv Pal, Nar Singh @ Naiya and Dharamveer @ Dharampal] of offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Case in brief According to the prosecution's case, the bodies of Sobaran and Awadhesh were found in a wheat field near the Block Compound at Nawabganj on December 12, 1996. An initial FIR was registered against unknown persons after information regarding 2 unidentified bodies was furnished by a local resident. Subsequently, after the bodies were identified, the father of deceased-Sobaran lodged another report naming the accused on the basis of previous enmity and information allegedly received from certain villagers who claimed to have last seen the deceased with them.High Court's observationsExamining the prosecution's case, the High Court noted that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence and the conviction rested entirely on evidence of 3 Prosecution witnesses who claimed that they had last seen the deceased persons with the accused-appellants.The Bench closely scrutinised the testimonies of these PWs and opined that they had been "planted and projected by the prosecution with consideration and afterthought" to substantiate its case.The Court further found that it was clear that in reality these witnesses had not seen the deceased Sobaran and Awadhesh with the accused persons before their death.The bench also found their conduct unnatural as, despite claiming to have seen the deceased with the accused shortly before the murders, none disclosed this information either to the deceased's family or to the police until after the bodies had been recovered and identified."The conduct and manner of these above prosecution witnesses creates a reasonable doubt about the veracity and truthfulness of their evidence… From the reading and perusal of the evidence of the above witnesses of prosecution, it is clear that for the conviction of the appellants, evidence of these witnesses could not be safely relied for the conviction of the appellants", the bench remarked.Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh 2016, Krishnan alias Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu 2014 and Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2014, the Bench reiterated that the "last seen together" theory is a weak piece of evidence and cannot, by itself, form the basis of conviction.The Court observed that the doctrine applies only where the time gap between the accused being last seen with the deceased and the discovery of death is so small that the possibility of any other person committing the offence becomes impossible. Even then, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the accused, the Court added.The High Court also found serious deficiencies in the prosecution's reliance on the recovery of a garasa and takora allegedly used in the murders. While the Forensic Science Laboratory reported the presence of human blood on the recovered weapons, it did not establish that the blood belonged to either of the deceased. According to the Court, had the prosecution proved that the blood was that of the deceased, one important link in the chain of circumstances could have been established. In the absence of such evidence, however, the recovery alone could not legally connect the accused with the crime, the Court said.The Bench further noted that the investigating officer had not recorded any disclosure statement of the accused regarding the concealment of the alleged weapons. Relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Wadla Bheemaraidu vs State of Telangana, 2024, the Court held that the alleged recovery was doubtful because the mandatory requirements governing discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act had not been satisfied.The Court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra, 1984, and observed that every link in the chain of circumstances must be fully established and unerringly point to...

Last Seen Theory Alone Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three In 1996 Double Murder Case

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Last Seen Theory Alone Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three In 1996 Double Murder Case

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers