Brief Facts
- The complainant found a dead body of an unidentified male in his fields. The investigation brought out the identity of the deceased person, to be of Krishnappa. Allegations were brought against the appellant, R. Sreenivasa – (Appellant) and another, Accused No. 2. It was alleged that both the accused persons had concurring intention for which they killed deceased. The motive of the murder, as claimed was due to the development of an illicit relation between the deceased and the sister of the Appellant.
- The evidences of the murder were attempted to be destroyed by the accused, by means of pouring petrol and setting the dead body on fire. However, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges pertaining to sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The reasoning supporting the acquittal was that the prosecution failed to substantiate its claims with the proof that the deceased was last seen with the accused, along with this prosecution also failed to establish extra – judicial confession.
- An appeal was filed before the High Court and the High Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court against Appellant followed by the dismissal of appeal against Co- Accused-2.
Issues
- When can be the last seen theory be invoked?
- When there are two views possible, then upon whom the view should be taken?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court on the ground that there was no definitive evidence of last seen theory and case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. During the investigation the witnesses deposed that Accused A-2 was last seen with the deceased, however, during the trial the witnesses named the Appellant as the person last seen with the deceased. Thus, there were material contradiction.
- In the present case, given that there is no definitive evidence of last seen as also the fact that there is a long time-gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body, and in the absence of other corroborative pieces of evidence, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete that the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant.
- The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. (Kanhaiya Lal v State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715)
- The ‘last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Chotkau v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 6 SCC 742).
• In the case of an acquittal, must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. It was also emphasized that when two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be leaned on. (Chandrappa v State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415).
Relevant Para No.
- 15, 16, 17, 18