The court emphasized the insufficiency of the last seen theory for conviction without corroborative evidence, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections related to suspension of sentence and bail - The appellant was arrested on 04.03.2017, with the incident occurring on 21.02.2017, relying on the last seen theory for conviction. The appellant contended the evidence was weak due to the nature of the witness's employment. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was granted bail pending appeal. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4)

(B) Last Seen Theory - The court acknowledged the weakness of the last seen evidence, emphasizing the need for stronger corroborative evidence in criminal cases. (Paras 2, 3)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted based on the last seen theory, with the primary evidence being the testimony of a liquor shop employee. The appellant has been incarcerated for about seven years, and the appeal process is expected to take time.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the suspension of the appellant's sentence and granted bail, subject to conditions set by the trial court, while clarifying that the observations made do not reflect on the merits of the case.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the last seen theory and the appropriateness of granting bail during the appeal process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the last seen evidence was insufficient for conviction without corroboration, and the prolonged incarceration warranted the suspension of the sentence pending appeal.

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment is set aside.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The court acknowledged that the evidence based solely on the last seen theory was weak and emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence for conviction (!) (!) .
The appellant, Subhash, was arrested on 04.03.2017 for an incident that occurred on 21.02.2017, with the primary evidence relying on the last seen testimony from a liquor shop employee (!) (!) .
The appellant had already been incarcerated for about seven years, and the appeal process was expected to take additional time (!) .
The court found that the last seen evidence was insufficient for a conviction without corroboration and, considering the prolonged incarceration, decided to suspend the sentence and grant bail pending the appeal (!) .
The court ordered the release of the appellant on bail during the pendency of the appeal, subject to conditions set by the trial court, including providing a contact mobile number (!) .
The court clarified that its observations were solely for the disposal of the present appeal and bail, and did not constitute a judgment on the merits of the case (!) .
The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in the terms specified, with pending applications disposed of accordingly (!) (!) (!) .
The order included the condition that if the appellant failed to appear when the appeal was taken up, the High Court could cancel the bail and suspend the sentence (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

ORDER

Leave granted.

In the present case, the appellant – Subhash was arrested/detained on 04.03.2017. The incident in question had occurred sometime between 5–5.30 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. on 21.02.2017. The primary evidence relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is predicated on the last seen theory.

It is the contention of the appellant – Subhash that the last seen theory/evidence is rather weak, as Rahul Singh (PW-12) is an employee at the liquor shop, wherein hundreds of people come to make purchases.

The appellant – Subhash has already suffered incarceration for about seven years. The appeal preferred by the appellant – Subhash before the High Court is likely to take some time before it is heard and finally decided.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we accept the present appeal and direct that during the pendency of Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No. 16419/2023 Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2024.04.08 18:29:36 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified Criminal Appeal no. 3491/20181 before the High Court, the appellant – Subhash will be released on suspension of sentence/bail, on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court.

The appellant – Subhash will provide one mobile number on which he can be contacted by the Investigating officer/Station House Officer of the concerned police station to ascertain his whereabouts.

In case the appellant – Subhash does not appear when the appeal is taken up by the High Court for hearing, it will be open to the High Court to cancel the suspension of sentence/bail.

The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

We clarify that the observations made in this order are for disposal of the present appeal and grant of bail, and the same will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

......................J. (SANJIV KHANNA) ......................J. (DIPANKAR DATTA) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 08, 2024.

1Arising out of judgment dated 27.03.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 107/2017. ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16419/2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-09-2023 in IA No. 12278/2023 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Indore) SUBHASH Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.262285/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.262279/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 08-04-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Jain, Adv. Ms. Wamika Chadha, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Adv. Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Argha Roy, Adv. Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ruby, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

In terms of the signed order, the present appeal is accepted and it is directed that during the pendency of Criminal Appeal no.

3491/20182 before the High Court, the appellant – Subhash will be released on suspension of sentence/bail, on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court.

The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5044

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASUBHASH – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RespondentCrl.A. No.-001988-001988 / 2024

The court emphasized the insufficiency of the last seen theory for conviction without corroborative evidence, allowing bail due to prolonged incarceration.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUBHASH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
Crl.A. No.-001988-001988 / 2024