Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Shahin Subaida – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1274 of 2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashok Kumar Swarnakar
For the Respondents: Priyank Rathi

A conviction based solely on the 'last seen' theory in circumstantial evidence cases is unsustainable unless the prosecution establishes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes every possibility of the accused's innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Conviction on circumstantial evidence - Requirements - Prosecution case rested on 'last seen' theory - Hostile witnesses and absence of motive - Failure to establish chain of circumstances - Benefit of doubt given to the accused.

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of her three minor children by allegedly pushing them into a water body. The prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence, including the theory of being 'last seen' in the company of the children near the place of incident and alleged domestic disputes as motive. The appellant contended that the incident was an accidental drowning and that she was in a state of shock, maintaining that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of circumstances.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the testimony regarding the appellant being 'last seen' was inconclusive and did not establish any criminal act. Witnesses declared hostile provided testimony supporting the defense of accidental death and shock. The prosecution failed to establish motive or any direct causative link between the appellant and the deaths, warranting the acquittal of the appellant.

Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the appellant’s guilt; whether the 'last seen' theory can form the basis of conviction here; and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be so complete as to preclude any hypothesis of innocence. Mere 'last seen' evidence, especially in the absence of a short time gap or additional incriminating circumstances, is insufficient for conviction. Where evidence is of such nature that two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of the trial, conviction under section 302 ipc, and the procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. apposing contentions regarding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and witness reliability. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. elaboration of legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and the 'last seen' theory. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's re-evaluation of evidence, highlighting contradictions and lack of conclusive proof. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. concluding reasoning for setting aside the conviction, acquittal, and directions for release. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

13 .04 .202 6

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja (Amkikapur), District – Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.35/2021, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC (Three Times) and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 03 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Jamshed Ansari, appeared at Police Station Lakhanpur on 08.04.2020 and lodged a report stating that his marriage was solemnized in the year 2013, as per social customs, with Shaheen Subaida, a resident of Village Bhuswa, Police Station Majhiaon, District Garhwa, Jharkhand. Out of the said wedlock, they had three children, namely Khushi alias Nagma Nisha aged about 6 years, Ashiq Ansari aged about 4 years, and Asif Ansari aged about 2 years. It was further stated that due to domestic issues, frequent quarrels and disputes used to take place between him and his wife. On 07.04.2020, his wife questioned him as to why he did not operate the bore (water pump) on time, which led to a dispute, during which the complainant slapped his wife 2–3 times. On the following day, i.e., 08.04.2020, between 8:00 to 9:00 AM, another quarrel took place between them over domestic matters. Being upset over the said dispute, at about 2:00 PM, the accused, Shaheen Subaida, allegedly took all three children along with her to a muddy water body near Manja Tungi Nala and, with the intention to kill them, pushed all three children into the water, resulting in their death. Upon completion of the entire investigation, an offence under Section 302 IPC was found to be made out against the accused and accordingly registered. After completing all necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur on 07.07.2020, from where the case was committed vide order dated 22.01.2021 and thereafter received by the competent Court on 03.02.2021 for proper adjudication.

3. Thereafter, on 22.02.2021, charges were framed against the accused, Shaheen Subaida, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (three counts). The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried, and her plea was recorded in her own words.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined a total of 10 witnesses before the trial Court, namely Jamshed Ansari (PW-1), Lobhan Singh (PW-2), Ashish Bhagat (PW-3), Patwari Nitin Kumar Tiwari (PW-4), Mehtab Ansari (PW-5), Qurban Ansari (PW 6), Vakil Ansari (PW-7), Tara Bai (PW-8), Dalsai (PW-9), and Inspector Manoj Prajapati (PW-10).

5. In her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further stated that she does not wish to adduce any evidence in her defence.

6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 07.07.2022, convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 of the IPC (three counts) and sentenced her as mentioned in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JShahin Subaida – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 1274 of 2022

A conviction based solely on the 'last seen' theory in circumstantial evidence cases is unsustainable unless the prosecution establishes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes every possibility of the accused's innocence.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Shahin Subaida – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1274 of 2022