1
0
Author: Aprajita Vashishta
In December 2025, it was upheld by the Supreme Court that a conviction cannot be solely based on the ‘last seen theory’, especially when the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must establish and complete an unbroken chain of evidence. By allowing the criminal appeal, the division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the conviction of the appellant Manoj @ Munna under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), granting him the benefit of doubt.
Factual Background-
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 [i]. The Post-mortem examination conducted by Dr Ashish Sharma (PW-13) revealed extensive burn injuries, ligature marks on the neck, lacerated wounds and decomposition. The cause of death was opined to be shock and burn injuries, and the death was undisputedly held to be homicidal. While the Trial Court acquitted five co-accused, it convicted the appellant relying primarily on the testimonies of PW-18 and PW-20 on the ‘last seen theory’, along with the alleged motive of looting a tractor to arrange money. The High Court had affirmed the conviction and additionally drew an adverse inference against the appellant for failing to explain when he had parted company with the deceased.
Submissions Before the Honourable Apex Court
The Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and suffered from serious irregularities, which included the absence of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. It was argued that the alleged motive attributed to the appellant had remained unproven and that the very same evidence relied upon to convict the appellant had been disbelieved in respect of the other co-accused. Special emphasis was laid on the settled legal position that a conviction cannot be solely sustained based on the ‘last seen together’ theory. The State, however, supported the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, contending that the last-seen evidence, when read with the appellant’s failure to explain his conduct and the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased, was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
Supreme Court’s analysis –
The Court noted that at the outset, there was no ocular evidence and that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, based solely on ‘motive’ and the ‘last-seen’ theory. While the homicidal nature of death remains undisputed, the Court found it to be insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The SC reiterated the ‘Panchsheel’ laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [ii], one of the principles of the Panchsheel could be summarily observed as,
“There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused”.
It was read along with the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. State of Gujarat [iii], to observe that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, while convicting the accused, there should be no circumstance that is consistent with the innocence of the accused.
Motive not established-
The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered the deceased to loot a tractor and arrange money to reclaim his jeep. However, no such evidence showing any attempt by the appellant to sell the tractor, nor was the tractor recovered from another place after about a month. Hence, the alleged motive remained speculative.
Limitations of the ‘Last Seen Together’ Theory-
By examining the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Court had accepted that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and another co-accused. However, it was held that these circumstances by themselves were insufficient to sustain a conviction. By relying on precedents including the Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh [iv], Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan [v], and the recent judgment in Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha [vi], the apex court reiterated: “A conviction cannot be recorded merely on the ground that the accused was last seen together with the deceased.” The Court further observed that the time stretch between the alleged ‘last seen’ and the recovery of the body was not so narrow as to rule out the involvement of any other person.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act is unable to Fill Gaps in a prosecution case
The High Court had drawn an adverse inference under Section 106 [vii] of the Evidence Act due to the appellant’s failure to explain when he parted company with the deceased. However, rejecting this approach, the Court held that this provision cannot be used to cure foundational deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court relied on Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha [viii] and Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi [ix]) to reiterate that Section 106 is an exception and only applies in situations where the prosecution’s burden of proving an accused person’s guilt has been successfully met, from which a plausible conclusion is drawn that the accused is guilty.
Selective Reliance on Evidence
The Court took into consideration the fact that the same set of circumstantial evidence was found insufficient to convict the other five co-accused but was selectively relied upon to convict the appellant, which led to the further weakening of the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion-
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court observed that “except for the evidence of last seen together, there is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant, and conviction on that basis alone cannot be sustained.” Accordingly, the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
The above article is based on the author’s personal analysis of the Supreme Court’s judgment Manoj @Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2013, 2025 INSC 1466 (SC), based on statutes, such as the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and the cases referred above are taken from the judgment itself.
Referances:
[i] Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2013, 2025 INSC 1466 (SC)
[ii] (1984) 4 SCC 116
[iii] (1978) 1 SCC 228
[iv] (2016) 12 SCC 251
[v] (2014) 4 SCC 715
[vi] 2025 INSC 751
[vii] Section 106– Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[viii] (2023) 11 SCC 813
[ix] (2024) 15 SCC 48
