Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., B. Ragunath, Jaishree Viswanathan, T. Sakthi Kumaran, Vijay Kumar and Abhishek Kaushik, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: B. Balaji, Adv.

Key Points: - Prosecution must prove complete chain of events in a circumstantial case; last seen alone is insufficient (!) (!) (!) (!) - Extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must be voluntary, true, corroborated, and credible; may form basis of conviction only with cogent corroboration (!) (!) (!) (!) - Extent of reliance on Ext. P-4 extrajudicial confession is scrutinized; if it has material discrepancies or lacks corroboration, conviction may be set aside (!) (!) - If prosecution evidence is unreliable or inconsistent, higher courts may acquit and extend benefits to non-appealing accused under constitutional powers (Article 142/136) to ensure justice; set precedent for extending acquittal to co-accused (!) (!) (!) - Time of death and medical/ocular evidence must coherently support the chain of events; contradictions can undermine conviction (!) (!) (!) - Recoveries made under Section 27 of Evidence Act require lawful, corroborated linkage to the crime; lack of corroboration can weaken evidence (!) (!)

What is the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extrajudicial confession in a case based on circumstantial evidence?

What is the role and sufficiency of the last seen theory in establishing guilt in a circumstantial case?

What remedy does the Supreme Court provide when the prosecution evidence is unreliable or inconsistent, including extending acquittal or benefits to non-appealing accused?