Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Padman Bibhar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 17440 of 2024)
Decided on : 21-05-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – ‘Last seen together’ – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime was committed by accused and none else – Facts so proved should unerringly point towards guilt of accused – Stone allegedly used for committing murder was recovered near dead body but same is not in consequence of any memorandum statement of appellant – I.O has not recorded any memorandum statement of appellant – Even chemical examination report is inconclusive although human blood was found on shirt and on stone, but blood group was not matched – Present is a case where except for evidence of ‘last seen together’ there is no other incriminating material against appellant – Evidence on ‘last seen together’ is a weak piece of evidence – Conviction cannot be recorded against accused merely on the ground that accused was last seen with deceased – Evidence of motive does not satisfy Court to be an adverse circumstance against appellant inasmuch as if appellant has any doubt about his wife’s chastity, he would have caused injury or harm to his wife rather than to wife’s cousin with whom he had no animosity – Nature of circumstantial evidence available against appellant is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the basis of evidence on ‘last seen together’ – Impugned conviction and sentence imposed by High Court and Trial Court set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal by special leave is directed against impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2019, whereby High Court has affirmed conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court convicting appellant for committing offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs 10,000/- and imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- respectively for each of the offence.
Findings of Court:
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’.
Result : Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted.
Key Points: - Evidence of 'last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence and conviction cannot be recorded merely on this ground (!) (!) (!) . - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must prove each circumstance cumulatively to form a complete chain pointing exclusively to guilt (!) (!) . - The accused's conduct, mere non-explanation, or motive evidence alone is insufficient without conclusive connection to the crime (!) (!) (!) . - Absence of direct evidence, weapon, or memorandum statement, coupled with inconclusive chemical examination, prevents conviction (!) (!) . - The temporal gap and lack of other incriminating material make the 'last seen together' theory insufficient (!) (!) . - Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted due to insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2019, whereby the High Court has affirmed the conviction and 2019, whereby the High Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant for committing the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 18601[‘IPC’] and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000/- and imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- respectively for each of the offence.
THE PROSECUTION CASE:
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 11 a.m. on 04.04.2016, informant’s son Akash Garadia2[‘deceased’] along with Budhadeba Garadia(PW-1) and Susanta Kusulia(PW-2) and the appellant/accused had been to the river nearby the village to take bath. From there, the appellant/accused and the deceased went to cashew field for collecting the cashew. The appellant/accused and the deceased did not return for long time, however, PW-1 and PW-2 returned to the village. The informant/Kalia Garadia(PW-3) inquired about the whereabouts of his son from PW-1 and PW-2 who informed him that they asked the appellant/accused about the deceased to which he replied that the deceased will never return and if they disclose this fact to the co-villagers, he will kill them. Thereafter, PW-3 inquired from the appellant/accused about his son but he expressed his ignorance and told that he had not seen the deceased. Then PW-3 along with his co-villagers went to the riverside in search of the deceased but they could not find him. On the next day, i.e. 05.04.2016, about 06.00 a.m. again PW-3 went to the riverside in search of his son and found his dead body floating in the river. PW-3 lodged FIR (Exhibit-1) alleging that the appellant/accused has killed his son and threw his dead body in the river.
CHARGES AND EVIDENCE:
4. On the basis of the above information, IIC of Muniguda Police Sation registered P.S. Case No. 37 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and directed the Investigating Officer- Lakshman Majhi3[‘PW-19’] to take up the investigation which was duly completed and a chargesheet was filed against the appellant/accused of offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The charges were framed and the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges examined 19 prosecution witnesses and proved 10 documents and marked one M.O (blood stained stone).
5. Out of 19 prosecution witnesses examined before the Trial Court, PW-1, PW-2 are independent witnesses who accompanied the deceased to river for taking bath; PW-3 is the informant and father of the deceased; PWs-4, 6, 7, 8, 12 & 13 are co-villagers; PW-5 is the scribe; PWs-9, 10 & 11 are relatives; PW-14 is the wife of the appellant/accused and cousin sister of the deceased; PW-15 is the daughter of the informant; PW-16 is the wife of the informant and mother of the deceased; PW-17 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy; PW-18 is the police constable and PW-19 is the I.O. The appellant did not examine any witness. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he took plea that a false case had been foisted against him.
6. On the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court held the appellant/accused guilty for both the charges and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra and the same has been affirmed by the High Court.
7. The Trial Court found that the evidence on ‘last seen together’ and recovery of weapon together with motive are the circumstances which complete the chain of circumstantial evidence and are sufficient to hold the appellant/accused guilty for commission of murder and causing disappearance of evidence. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court has been affirmed by the High Court under the imp
Murder – Evidence on ‘last seen together’ is a weak piece of evidence – Conviction cannot be recorded against accused merely on the ground that accused was last seen with deceased.
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the last seen theory and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the death.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
