Prosecution Must Disprove Accused's Plea Of Alibi Before Convicting Based On 'Last Seen' Theory : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the husband and wife were last seen together in their shared home does not, by itself, justify convicting the husband for the alleged murder if he raises a plea of alibi and the prosecution fails to effectively disprove it.

Holding thus, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran set aside the husband's conviction for his wife's alleged murder, observing that the High Court wrongly placed the burden on the accused to prove his alibi, despite his early claim of absence in an intimation to the police and the police's failure to investigate the same.

“The fact of absence of the accused at the time of occurrence having been categorically stated in the first intimation, we find the High Court's conclusion that it was his duty to establish the alibi is flawed.”, the court observed.

The Court held that while a husband's failure to explain his wife's death in their shared home can be a strong incriminating circumstance, it cannot alone establish guilt, especially when he has raised a plausible plea of alibi offering an explanation about his absence at the place of incident.

“if the prosecution establishes that shortly before the crime, they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also resides, then if the accused does not offer any explanation or offers an explanation which is palpably false; that would be a strong circumstance, establishing his culpability in the crime. However, it cannot be the sole circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt on the part of the accused husband. In the present case, the accused has also offered an explanation that he had gone for duty at the cement factory; which is also mentioned in the first intimation given by the accused. The police ought to have inquired about his presence at the factory to disprove his alibi. Even before the FIR was registered, the intimation recorded clearly indicated this fact. The explanation was not one offered as an after-thought nor can it be termed to be false or even an improbable one. A mere suspicion cannot lead to a finding of guilt, especially when there is not available a chain of circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the guilt of the accused in the alleged crime, as has been held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.”, the court observed.

Resultantly, the Court allowed the appeal, noting that a complete chain pointing unequivocally to the guilt of the accused was not proven leading to the husband's conviction.

“We do not find a single circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused, leave alone, a chain of circumstances fully establishing the guilt of the accused and excluding every possible hypothesis, except that of guilt. True, the young woman, who was married just two years back died, tragically, at the house of the husband. There is no evidence to show that the husband was available on the ill-fated night when the death occurred. The husband–accused had a plausible explanation that he was on duty when the death of his wife occurred. It was the husband who first intimated the police about the sudden and unnatural death of his wife. The relatives of the deceased having come to the matrimonial house of the deceased on the very same day of the death, did not raise any suspicion as to the death being homicidal. It was after five days that a complaint was registered, alleging suicide by reason of the constant complaints raised against the deceased by her husband and in-laws; which remained largely unsubstantiated.”, the court observed.

“Having found absolutely no circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court which we set aside and restore the order of acquittal of the Trial Court. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The accused shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.”, the court held.

Case Title: Jagdish Gond Versus The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rishabh Sahu, D.A.G. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A.shukla, Adv.