A Weak Link in the Chain is Enough for Acquittal: Supreme Court Cautions Against Sole Reliance on ‘Last Seen’ Evidence

In a powerful reaffirmation of the criminal law’s burden of proof, the Supreme Court of India, on 21 May 2025, acquitted a man convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, holding that mere presence with the deceased before death—commonly termed as ‘last seen’—cannot be the sole basis for conviction without other conclusive evidence.

The case titled Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha, involved a man sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court, a verdict later affirmed by the Orissa High Court. The Supreme Court, however, found the conviction resting precariously on “a shaky and insufficient chain of circumstantial evidence.”

The Court declared:
“Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof… the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is quite large.”

“In the Absence of Conclusive Evidence, the Benefit of Doubt Is Not a Favour but a Constitutional Necessity”

The prosecution story began with the deceased, Akash Garadia, leaving to bathe in the river with two witnesses and the accused. While others returned, Akash did not. His body was discovered the following morning. The only evidence linking the accused was that he was last seen with the deceased.

Rejecting this premise as inadequate, the Supreme Court emphasized:
“The present is a case where except for the evidence of ‘last seen together’, there is no other incriminating material against the appellant.”

Further, the Court found no motive, no recovery based on disclosure, no confession, and no forensic match of blood samples to the accused. The Court noted that even the so-called murder weapon—a stone—was not traced to the accused through any admissible means.

“The stone allegedly used for committing murder was recovered near the dead body, but not in consequence of any memorandum statement of the appellant,” the judgment noted.

“The Chain Must Be Unbroken—And It Was Not”

Relying on the foundational principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated the “five golden tests” of circumstantial evidence, asserting that unless the entire chain is so strong as to eliminate all possibilities except guilt, the law must acquit.

“In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof.”

In this case, the “last seen” evidence did not withstand scrutiny. The accused had not fled the village. He had participated in the search for the deceased. No incriminating recovery was made based on his statement. Even the supposed motive—that he suspected an affair between his wife and the deceased—was introduced for the first time at trial and unsupported by earlier investigation or testimonies.

“It Would Be Dangerous to Sustain a Conviction Based Only on the Accused’s Presence With the Victim”

The Court drew a sharp distinction between what might raise moral suspicion and what satisfies criminal conviction. Citing Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh, it observed:

“Conviction only on the basis of ‘last seen together’ without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused is not sufficient to convict for an offence under Section 302 IPC.”

It added that where the time gap between last being seen with the victim and the discovery of the body is not so small as to rule out the involvement of others, the inference of guilt collapses.

“Law Demands Certainty, Not Speculation—Conviction Requires More Than Proximity to the Crime Scene”

The Court’s remarks were unequivocal: “If the appellant had any doubt about his wife’s chastity, he would have caused injury or harm to her, not her cousin with whom he had no enmity.”

Refusing to convict on such speculative motives or incomplete chains of events, the Court emphasized that justice requires “clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence,” not “vague conjectures.”

Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of both the High Court and the Trial Court: “We set aside the impugned conviction and sentence… and acquit the appellant for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appellant be set at liberty.”

In delivering this judgment, the Supreme Court has once again upheld that in criminal law, the presumption of innocence is not a formality but a safeguard against miscarriage of justice. Where guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, liberty must triumph.

“It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence… mere ‘last seen’ is not enough,” the Court declared.

This decision reinforces the enduring principle that conviction must rest on certainty, not speculation—and certainly not on suspicion, no matter how grave it appears.

Date of Decision: 21 May 2025