Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Manoj @ Munna - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1129 Of 2013
Decided On : 18-12-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory – There is lack of ocular version of crime – Circumstantial evidence can be made basis of conviction of an accused person if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with innocence of accused and is consistent only with his guilt – Incriminating circumstances being used against accused must be such as to lead only to hypothesis of guilt and must exclude every other possibility of innocence of accused – If circumstances proved against accused, in a particular case, are consistent with innocence of accused, he will be entitled to benefit of doubt – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Present is a case where except for evidence of last seen together, there is no other corroborative evidence against appellant – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained – Appellant acquitted of offence alleged against him. (Paras 11, 12, 34, 35 and 36)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Last seen theory – When an accused is shown to have been last seen in the company of the deceased, it becomes incumbent upon him to explain how and when they parted ways – Doctrine of last seen rests on logical presumption that where an individual is last seen alive in close company of accused, and is soon thereafter found dead, accused must reasonably account for circumstances in which they parted ways, as such facts fall particularly within his knowledge – It rests on presumption that human behaviour follows natural probabilities and person who was last seen with deceased must be able to explain facts that resulted in subsequent death of deceased – Any adverse inference under Section 106 of Evidence Act is to be drawn against accused person when prosecution has been able to establish case beyond reasonable doubt.. (Paras 24, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.306/2008, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amounts, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and 03 months respectively.
Findings of Court:
If accused fails to present a credible explanation regarding facts within his special knowledge, this failure constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence established against him. At the same time, it must be emphasized that Section 106 of Evidence Act does not shift the primary burden of proof, which in a criminal trial always remains on prosecution.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.306/2008, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1[“IPC”] and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amounts, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and 03 months respectively.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. According to the prosecution, on 07.06.2004, the appellant, along with five co-accused, committed dacoity and, during its commission, caused the death of Yuvraj Singh Patle. The accused were, therefore, charged under Sections 302, 302/34, 396, 201 and 120-B of the IPC for murder, dacoity with murder, criminal conspiracy, and causing disappearance of evidence. It was further alleged that on 06.06.2004, the appellant was last seen with the deceased. The appellant had taken him on his motorcycle from Salhevara. The deceased was subsequently found dead on the next day, i.e., 07.06.2004
3. The dead body of Yuvraj Singh Patle was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Center, Gandai where Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW 13) vide Ex. P-20 found the following injuries:
ii) Body was decomposed.
iii) Hairs were pilling off.
iv) Swelling over stratum and penis.
v) Two ligature marks over the neck.
vi) Lacerated wound over right temporal region of 2 x 2 x 1 c.m.
vii) Lacerated wound over right collar bone.
viii) Both palms were burnt.
ix) Burn injury over the legs were found.
According to Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW 13), the cause of death was shock and burn injury and the death was homicidal in nature.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question.
5. The Trial Court, while acquitting the remaining five accused, convicted the appellant by placing reliance on the testimonies of Bedram (PW-18), Chamru Singh (PW-20) and D.S. Marko, Executive Magistrate (PW-22), particularly with respect to the last seen theory. The Trial Court held that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased while returning from the house of Mangal Patle on a motorcycle. The medical evidence, according to the Trial Court, established that attempts had been made to burn the body with the intention of destroying the evidence. The Trial Court further found that the appellant had looted the tractor after murdering the driver, Yuvraj Singh Patle, for the purpose of arranging money. On this basis, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the motive and established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant.
6. The High Court in the impugned judgment affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on the basis of the last seen theory and the fact that the appellant did not offer any explanation as to when he left the company of the deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle. In absence of such explanation and circumstance, the High Court held that only inference possible was that it was the appellant who committed homicidal death amounting to murder of Yuvraj Singh Patle and with a view to conceal the evidence of crime, the appellant burnt the dead body of Yuvraj Singh Patle.
B. SUBMISSIONS
7. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant would submit that since the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances is not complete. The evidence adduced by the prosecution suffer from infirmities and contradictions.
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....
(1) Circumstantial evidence – ‘Last seen’ theory can be invoked only when same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.(2) When two views are possible, one favouring accused is to be leaned on.
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.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Prosecution must prove the entire chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt, failing which conviction cannot be sustained.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
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
