Appeal
1. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.306/2008, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amounts, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and 03 months respectively.
Factual Matrix
Appellant along with five others while committing dacoity caused injuries on the deceased and further had taken the deceased in his motorcycle subsequently found dead
2. 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.
Injuries on the dead body
3. The dead body of Yuvraj Singh Patle was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Center, Gandai where Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW 13) vide Ex. P-20 found the following injuries: i) Burn injury found over body of 2-3 degree. ii) Body was decomposed. iii) Hairs were pilling off. iv) Swelling over stratum and penis. v) Two ligature marks over the neck. vi) Lacerated wound over right temporal region of 2 x 2 x 1 c.m. vii) Lacerated wound over right collar bone. viii) Both palms were burnt. ix) Burn injury over the legs were found. According to Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW 13), the cause of death was shock and burn injury and the death was homicidal in nature.
Trial
4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question.
Trial court acquitted the other accused convicted the appellant for the death of the deceased based on circumstantial evidence
5. The Trial Court, while acquitting the remaining five accused, convicted the appellant by placing reliance on the testimonies of Bedram (PW-18), Chamru Singh (PW-20) and D.S. Marko, Executive Magistrate (PW-22), particularly with respect to the last seen theory. The Trial Court held that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased while returning from the house of Mangal Patle on a motorcycle. The medical evidence, according to the Trial Court, established that attempts had been made to burn the body with the intention of destroying the evidence. The Trial Court further found that the appellant had looted the tractor after murdering the driver, Yuvraj Singh Patle, for the purpose of arranging money. On this basis, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the motive and established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant.
High court has affirmed the conviction
6. The High Court in the impugned judgment affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on the basis of the last seen theory and the fact that the appellant did not offer any explanation as to when he left the company of the deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle. In absence of such explanation and circumstance, the High Court held that only inference possible was that it was the appellant who committed homicidal death amounting to murder of Yuvraj Singh Patle and with a view to conceal the evidence of crime, the appellant burnt the dead body of Yuvraj Singh Patle.
Analysis
Question to decide
10. The only question that arises for our consideration is — whether the Trial Court and the High Court were correct in convicting the appellant solely on the basis of the theory of last seen together?
Homicidal death is based on circumstantial evidence
11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the case of the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence in the form of motive and last seen together, since there is lack of ocular version of the crime. The fact that the death was homicidal in nature was duly proved by Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW-13) who conducted the autopsy. Large number of injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was shock and burn injury. Thus, there is no doubt on the aspect that the death of Yuvraj Singh Patle was homicidal in nature.
Circumstantial evidence is of such a character wholly consistent only with the guilt of the accused
12. It is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be made the basis of conviction of an accused person if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt. The incriminating circumstances being used against the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and must exclude every other possibility of innocence of the accused and if the circumstances proved against the accused, in a particular case, are consistent with the innocence of the accused, he will be entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Judgment analysis
13. This Court in a landmark judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra2 laid down the five golden rules to be kept in mind while appreciating circumstantial evidence. The same reads thus:
“para. 153”.
14. Further, in the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. State of Gujarat, this Court held that while convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence, there should remain no circumstance which aligns with the innocence of the accused. The observations made by this Court read thus:
“7. It is well-established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.” (emphasis supplied)
Discussing motive and last seen together theory
15. Having noted the principles governing a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, we now proceed to discuss the evidence as put forth by the prosecution in bringing home the charges against the appellant:
i) Motive – It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant needed money to get his jeep back and for this purpose, the appellant looted the tractor by killing the driver Yuvraj Singh Patle to arrange money. However, there is no further evidence on record to prove that after looting the tractor and committing the alleged murder of the deceased, the appellant has tried to sell the tractor for arranging money. In fact, it was stated during the course of argument that the tractor was recovered from some other place after one month of the incident. Thus, in the absence of evidence that the appellant attempted to sell the tractor, the theory of appellant trying to arrange money to get his jeep back is not established.
ii) Last Seen Together Theory – In the present case, the prosecution has examined Bedram (PW-18) and Chamru Singh (PW-20). It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant took the deceased on the motorcycle and, thereafter, the dead body of the deceased in injured condition was found. As per the evidence of PW-18, the appellant and one of the accused Bhagwandas called Yuvraj Singh Patle at Salhevara, thereafter they went to Banjari. After that, Yuvraj Singh Patle was not found along with them and later his dead body was found.
Prosecution proved that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellant
22. Thus, from the testimonies of Bedram (PW-18) and Chamru Singh (PW20), the prosecution has been able to prove that deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle was last seen alive in the company of the appellant and co-accused Bhagwandas at Salhevara on the evening of 06.06.2004. The accused persons took the deceased along with them towards Banjari on the pretext of fetching cable wires, after leaving Chamru Singh (PW-20) behind at the house of Mangal Patle. Thereafter, Yuvraj Singh Patle was never seen alive again, and his dead body was subsequently recovered.
Discussing the last seen together
23. Keeping in view the above-stated testimonies, the crucial question is — whether the evidence of last seen together is sufficient enough to convict the appellant in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?
Last seen alive theory, based on logical presumption is explained
24. The doctrine of last seen rests on the logical presumption that where an individual is last seen alive in the close company of an accused, and is soon thereafter found dead, the accused must reasonably account for the circumstances in which they parted ways, as such facts fall particularly within his knowledge. Thus, it rests on the presumption that human behavior follows natural probabilities, and, hence, the person who was last seen with the deceased must be able to explain the facts that resulted in the subsequent death of the deceased.
Can’t convict the accused on the mere ground he was last seen with the deceased judgments referred
25. Recently in the case of Padman Bibhar vs. State of Odisha, this Court, speaking through one of us (Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.), while acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC held that the conviction cannot be sustained against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased.
26. In Rambraksh vs. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court observed that the last seen theory applies only when the time gap between the last seen point and the discovery of the death is so small that no one else could have committed the crime. Even then, this circumstance alone is insufficient and the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances proving the accused’s guilt. In the said decision, this Court held as under:
“12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.” (emphasis applied)
27. Further this Court in the case of Krishnan alias Ramasamy and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu6 while relying on its judgment in Arjun Marik vs. State of Bihar observed as follows:
“21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551] this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31)
“31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.”” (emphasis supplied)
28. In Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court held that evidence on last seen together is a weak evidence and conviction only on the basis of last seen together without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused will not be sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
High Court’s convicted based on the doubt that since no explanation offered about his leave he might have burnt the dead body
29. Another circumstance that the High Court took into consideration against the appellant was that the present appellant has not offered any explanation about when he left the company of the deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle and in absence of such explanation and circumstance, inference would be possible that the present appellant has committed homicidal death amounting to murder of Yuvraj Singh Patle and with a view to conceal the evidence of crime, he burnt his dead body.
Section 106 IEA: Special knowledge must be emphasized only after the prosecution establish the case beyond reasonable doubt
30. It is a settled principle that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18729 clearly provides that when a fact lies especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact rests upon him. Accordingly, when an accused is shown to have been last seen in the company of the deceased, it becomes incumbent upon him to explain how and when they parted ways. The explanation furnished must be reasonable, probable, and satisfactory in the opinion of the Court. If such an explanation is offered, the burden cast by Section 106 of the Evidence Act stands discharged. However, if the accused fails to present a credible explanation regarding facts within his special knowledge, this failure constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence established against him. At the same time, it must be emphasized that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the primary burden of proof, which in a criminal trial always remains on the prosecution.
31. Thus, any adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is to be drawn against the accused person when the prosecution has been able to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
Acquittal: Though circumstantial evidence casts doubt on the homicide committed by the accused but the same is inconclusive without any corroborative evidence and based on the last seen together
34. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises a doubt that he may have committed the offence but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the evidence of the last seen together. Be that as it may. It is a settled proposition that whenever any doubt emanates in the mind of the Court, the benefit shall accrue to the accused and not the prosecution. The present is a case where except for the evidence of last seen together, there is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained.
Conviction set aside and acquitted the appellant/accused
35. Thus, we set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court as well as the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged against him. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
36. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.
Judgments cited or quoted or involved
On the General Principles of Circumstantial Evidence
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: This is the most significant case cited. The Court reiterated the “Five Golden Principles” (Panchsheel) established in this judgment, which mandate that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
- Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793: Cited to emphasize that while the court must ensure the innocent are not punished, it also has a duty to ensure the guilty do not escape.
- Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat, (1978) 1 SCC 228: Referenced regarding the standard of proof required in cases of circumstantial evidence.
On the “Last Seen Together” Theory – The Court cited several cases to establish that “last seen” evidence is “weak evidence” and cannot be the sole basis for conviction
- Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251: Used to highlight that a significant time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the body breaks the chain of evidence.
- Krishnan alias Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 279: Cited to show that “last seen together” is not conclusive and must be supported by other corroborative links.
- Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715: Referenced regarding the insufficiency of the last seen theory when other circumstances (like motive or recovery) are missing.
- Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372: Cited to reiterate that the last seen circumstance alone is not enough to sustain a conviction.
On Section 106 of the Evidence Act (Burden of Proof) – “special knowledge” only arises after the prosecution has established a prima facie case
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681: Discussed in the context of the accused’s duty to provide an explanation when a crime occurs within the privacy of a home.
- Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha, (2023) 11 SCC 813: Cited to explain the limitations of shifting the burden of proof to the accused.
- Anees v. State Govt. of NCT, (2024) 15 SCC 48: A recent precedent used to underline that Section 106 cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution’s story.
- Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha, 2025 INSC 751: Another very recent judgment cited regarding the application of Section 106.
Acts and Sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
- Section 302: Punishment for murder.
- Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 396: Dacoity with murder.
- Section 120-B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 101: Burden of proof.
- Section 106: Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
- Section 313: Power to examine the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
Party
Manoj @ Munna versus The State of Chhattisgarh - Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2013 - 2025 INSC 1466 - December 18, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.Manoj @ Munna vs. The State of Chhattisgarh – 334302011_2025-12-18Download
