Chhattisgarh High Court Rules Last Heard Is Not Last Seen Evidence In Murder Appeal

In a significant ruling regarding the standards for circumstantial evidence, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has overturned a trial court’s conviction in a murder case. The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that evidence of a victim being "last heard" over a telephone call cannot be legally equated with the evidentiary doctrine of being "last seen together."

The Tragedy at the Farm

The case originated on April 18, 2020, when Kamal Dhruv, an agricultural laborer, was found unresponsive near a village byara in Abhanpur. He was transported to the Government Hospital, Abhanpur, but was declared dead upon arrival. The Prosecution’s narrative alleged that the appellant had murdered the deceased, basing its case primarily on the testimony of the victim’s wife, who claimed the deceased had called her earlier that day, stating he was in the company of the appellant and three others at a farm.

Following his trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Aggrieved by the life sentence, the appellant moved the High Court, challenging the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence.

Arguments and Legal Scrutiny

The defense counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. Crucially, it was noted that no witness actually observed the accused and the victim together at the relevant time. Conversely, the State maintained that the telephonic conversation and subsequent gestures made by the deceased while incapacitated were sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The High Court scrutinized whether the "last seen together" doctrine could be triggered by a hearsay phone call. The Bench concluded that while the victim's death was objectively homicidal, the evidence lacked the requisite connection to the accused to satisfy the standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court provided critical guidance on applying circumstantial norms:

  • "The doctrine of ' last seen together ' is founded upon direct evidence that the deceased was actually seen alive in the company of the accused."
  • "The telephonic conversation relied upon by PW-2 merely indicates that, according to the deceased, he was sitting with the appellant ... such evidence cannot, in law, be equated with proof of the circumstance of ' last seen together '."
  • "In cases based solely on circumstantial evidence , each circumstance must be conclusively proved and all the circumstances must form a complete chain."

Refining the Principles of Justice

The Court further emphasized that the trial court erred in drawing speculative inferences from the deceased’s non-verbal gestures, given that the victim allegedly pointed toward four individuals simultaneously. By misapplying the "last seen together" doctrine, the trial court bypassed the necessity of forming a complete investigative chain.

Following the principles established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , the High Court ruled that suspicion, regardless of its intensity, cannot substitute for legal proof. Finding the prosecution’s case inconclusive, the Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and acquitted the appellant, ordering his immediate release unless required for other legal matters. This judgment serves as a vital reminder of the high evidentiary threshold required in cases relying entirely upon circumstantial chain-linking.