Murder Trial - Once Prosecution Establishes 'Last Seen Theory', Accused Is Bound To Give Explanations : Supreme Court

A recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court has a notable discussion on the application of "last seen theory" in murder cases. Upholding the conviction of an accused in a murder case, the Court explained that once the prosecution has shown that the victim was last seen together along with the accused, then the accused has to give explanations.

"Once the theory of “last seen together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased", observed a bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi.

It was a case based totally on circumstantial evidence. There was evidence on record that the accused had taken the victim out of his house on the evening, before his body was found next day morning. 

"The death of the deceased Pratap Singh had taken place during the night hours of 19th and 20th December,1995, and that the petitioner was lastly seen with the deceased on the previous evening. Thus, it was the petitioner alone, who knew as to what happened after the evening of 19th December, 1995", the bench noted.

"It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position that if the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the accused as it may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him".

If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence.

Case Title : Ram Gopal S/o Mansharam vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, AOR Ms. Ms Neema, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, Adv. Amna Darakhshan, Adv.;

For Respondent(s) Mr. D.S. Parmar, AAG Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Rushant Malhotra, Adv.

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Last Seen Theory- Once the theory of “last seen together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased-If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence - Paras 6 to 9.

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106- It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him - Para 6

Click here to read the judgment