'Last Seen' Circumstance Cannot Be Sole Basis For Conviction : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

The court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance, the Supreme Court observed while setting aside concurrent conviction of murder accused.

The bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha observed that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow.

On 10.10, 1999, the dead body of Haseenm, a ten year old buy, was found in the sugarcane field of Yaqub in Village Narayanpur. Jabir and others were accused of committing murder of this boy and they were convicted by the Trial Court. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court.

The Apex Court bench, while reappreciating evidence on record, noted that the conviction is solely based on the testimonies of these two sets of witnesses who said that they had seen the deceased with the accused, early morning on 09.10.1999.

"In the present case, save the “last seen” theory, there is no other circumstance or evidence. Importantly, the time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of the accused on 09-10-1999 and the probable time of his death, based on the post mortem report, which was conducted two days later, but was silent about the probable time of death, though it stated that death occurred approximately two days before the post mortem, is not narrow. Given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants is not justified.", the court said.

The bench therefore allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction of the accused.

Case details

Jabir vs State of Uttarakhand | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41 | CrA 972 OF 2013 | 17 Jan 2023 | Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha

For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Neema, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv.

Headnotes

Criminal Trial - Last Seen Doctrine - The “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance - Referred to Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab 2005 (12) SCC 438  and Rambraksh vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2016 (12) SCC 251 (Para 23)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial evidence- The prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence - These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest - Referred to Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1985 (1) SCR 88. (Para 21)

Indian Penal Code, 1869 ; Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction in a murder case - Allowed - Conviction set aside - The time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of the accused on 09-10-1999 and the probable time of his death, based on the post mortem report, which was conducted two days later, but was silent about the probable time of death, though it stated that death occurred approximately two days before the post mortem, is not narrow. Given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants is not justified. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment