Circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain leading solely to the perpetrator's guilt. Significant temporal gaps in last-seen evidence, inconsistent or coerced confessions, and flawed procedural recoveries break the chain of circumstances, necessitating acquittal in a criminal trial.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

The son of the de-facto complainant found missing from the evening of 31.10.2012, turned up dead on the next day in a field, head down with the legs sticking up from a ditch. His three companions of the previous day found drinking and roaming around were rounded up and arrayed as accused. The prosecution went to trial with the circumstances of the last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of the objects used as weapons & a motorbike, seizures from the place of occurrence, oral testimonies and the serological report. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them, which was confirmed by the High Court. Two out of the three accused are before us in appeal i.e. the first and second accused, the third having not filed an appeal.

2. We have heard Ms. Ashima Mandla, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Shraddha Chirania, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent who also filed written notes of submissions.

3. Before the trial court, sixteen witnesses were examined and 40 exhibits were marked, which included documents. The trial court found from the last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession; both spoken of by more than one witness, testimony of PW-4 who spoke of A3 having come to her house on the very same night, the recovery of the objects used as weapons, the seizures carried out and the serology report, that a complete chain of circumstances was established to nail the accused with the crime of premeditated murder. The multiple depositions regarding the last seen together theory and the extra-judicial confessions corroborated each other. So did the extra-judicial confession of the murder having been committed in a field, corroborated by the recovery of the body from the field and the detection of alcohol in the stomach, corroborated the testimony of the deceased having been found drinking with the accused. The High Court too listed out the above circumstances to convict the accused.

4. We have to examine each of the circumstances as pointed out by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. In the present appeal, PW1 is the de-facto complainant, the father of the deceased. The FIS was taken down as recited by PW1, by PW2. It was the testimony of PW1 that on the evening of 30.10.2012 at around 4 PM, the three accused came on a motorbike and his son accompanied them on another motorbike, belonging to PW1. When his son did not reach home by 8 o’Clock, he searched for him along with PW3 and PW8. He also spoke of PW4, the aunt of A3 having spoken of A3 having approached her on the same night. On the next day morning, he heard about the death of his son and the detention of A1 and A2 by villagers. The last seen together theory commences from PW1’s testimony, of his son having gone with the three accused at about 4 PM and is taken forward, by the prosecution, through PW3, PW11 and PW14.

5. PW3 spoke of having seen the accused together with the deceased roaming at around 10 AM and at 5 PM, in his presence, PW1 having enquired about the deceased with his elder son. He spoke of having searched for the son of PW1 at the house of A1 and A3. A1 was not in his house and A3 is said to have gone with a truck. PW3 also spoke of A3 having come back at night with his father to enquire about the wher