Brief Facts
- In the present case the Appellants were convicted for the Offence under Section 302, 364 and 201 of IPC and subsequently their conviction was upheld by the High Court.
- Haseen, aged about 7 years, went missing on 08.10.1999. On 10.10.1999, at about 16:30, the dead body of Haseen was found in the sugarcane field of Yaqub in Village Narayanpur, situated at a distance from Akbarpur, Haseen’s village. Information was sent to the Police and thereafter, PW-1 (father of deceased) moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC and the FIR was registered on the order of the magistrate concerned.
- Based on the allegations of the Complainant, the police investigated the incident, and during the course of those proceedings, arrested the accused-appellants.
- After investigations, the police, in their final report, alleged that the appellants were guilty of the offence under sections 302, 364 and 201 of IPC. Charges were framed against them, by the court. Based on the materials placed before it, the Ld. Trial Court convicted the appellants, who then appealed to the High Court. The impugned judgment affirmed the trial court’s findings and thus, the accused persons approached the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Duty of prosecution in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
- Limitation of “last seen theory”.
Held
- Apex Court allowed the appeal and the conviction of the Appellant was set aside.
- A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, 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.
- It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, 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; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance.
- 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.
Relevant Para No.
- 21, 23, 25