7. At the outset, it may be stated that undisputedly the entire case of the prosecution rested on the circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. The law on the appreciation of circumstantial evidence is also well settled. The circumstances concerned “must or should be” established and not “may be” established, as held in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]. The accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a court can convict him. The conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures. The entire chain of circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. The five golden principles enumerated in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] laid down in para 152 may be reproduced herein for ready reference:
“152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) 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.”
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION & ITS IMPACT: 11. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. However, this court has consistently held that an extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession. As held in case of State of M.P. Through CBI & Ors. Vs. Paltan Mallah & Ors.[(2005) 3 SCC 169] , the extra judicial confession made by the co[1]accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused.
12. In Sahadevan & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 6 SCC 403], it was observed in para 14 as under:
“14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.”
The said ratio was also reiterated and followed by this court in cases of Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 11 SCC 768], S.K. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal [(2011) 11 SCC 754] and Pancho Vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 10 SCC 165], wherein it has been specifically laid down that the extra judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself and it has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. It should be truthful and should inspire confidence. An extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In the instant case it is true that the co[1]accused Videshi had allegedly made self-inculpatory extra judicial confession before the PW-4 Bhola Singh, and had made extra judicial confession before the other witnesses i.e., PW-5 Chandrashekhar, PW-6 Baran Singh Thakur and PW-7 Dukaluram stating, inter alia, that the other three accused i.e., Bhagirathi, Chandrapal and Mangal Singh had committed the murder and he (i.e. Videshi) was asked to assist them in disposing the dead bodies and concealing the evidence. However, the High Court, considering the inconsistency between the said two extra judicial confession made by the co-accused Videshi, did not find it safe to convict the other accused i.e., Bhagirathi, Mangal Singh and Videshi himself, and the High Court surprisingly considered the said extra judicial confession made by Videshi as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant Chandrapal for convicting him for the offences charged against him. In our opinion if such weak piece of evidence of the co-accused Videshi was not duly proved or found trustworthy for holding the other co-accused guilty of committing murder of the deceased Brinda and Kanhaiya, the High Court could not have used the said evidence against the present appellant for the purpose of holding him guilty for the alleged offence.
APPLYING LAST SEEN TOGETHER THEORY: 13. This takes the court to examine the theory of “Last seen together” propounded by the prosecution. As per the case of prosecution, PW-1 Dhansingh had seen the accused Chandrapal calling the deceased Kanhaiya and taking him inside his house on the fateful night. Apart from the fact that the said Dhansingh had not stated about the time or date when he had lastly seen Kanhaiya with Chandrapal, even assuming that he had seen Chandrapal calling Kanhaiya at his house when he was sitting at the premises of village panchayat, the said even had taken place ten days prior to the day when the dead bodies of the deceased were found. The time gap between the two incidents i.e., the day when Dhansingh saw Chandrapal calling Kanhaiya at his house and the day Kanhaiya’s dead body was found being quite big, it is difficult to connect the present appellant with the alleged crime, more particularly when there is no other clinching and cogent evidence produced by the prosecution.
14. In this regard it would be also relevant to regurgitate the law laid down by this court with regard to the theory of “Last seen together”.
15. In case of Bodhraj & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2002) 8 SCC 45], this court held in para 31 that:
“31. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible….”
16. In Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab [(2005) 12 SCC 438], this court held that in absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of “Last seen together”, even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed.
17. In Arjun Marik & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 372], It was observed 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. 18. As stated hereinabove, in order to convict an accused under Section 302 IPC the first and foremost aspect to be proved by prosecution is the factum of homicidal death. If the evidence of prosecution falls short of proof of homicidal death of the deceased, and if the possibility of suicidal death could not be ruled out, in the opinion of this court, the appellant[1]accused could not have been convicted merely on the basis of the theory of “Last seen together”.
IF PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE HOMICIDAL DEATH THEN ACCUSED CANNOT BE CONVICTED BASED ON LAST SEEN TOGETHER: 18. As stated hereinabove, in order to convict an accused under Section 302 IPC the first and foremost aspect to be proved by prosecution is the factum of homicidal death. If the evidence of prosecution falls short of proof of homicidal death of the deceased, and if the possibility of suicidal death could not be ruled out, in the opinion of this court, the appellant accused could not have been convicted merely on the basis of the theory of “Last seen together”.
PARTY: CHANDRAPAL V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (EARLIER M.P.) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2015 – MAY 27, 2022 – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 366.
