Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine

“Expert Opinion Cannot Override Scientific Forensics” —  On 17 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on the interplay between circumstantial evidence and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan clarified that when crucial facts lie within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, failure to offer any explanation permits the Court to draw an adverse inference, strengthening the prosecution’s chain of circumstances. The Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed conviction under Sections 306 and 309 IPC.

“Since the Deceased Is No More, It Was for the Appellant-Accused to Explain”: Section 106 Comes into Sharp Focus

One of the most important legal findings of the judgment relates to the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The accused and the deceased were last seen together outside a beauty parlour. Shortly thereafter, both were admitted to hospital after consuming poison. The deceased died; the accused survived.

In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied being in a relationship with the deceased and even denied hospital admission, despite overwhelming medical and documentary evidence to the contrary. He offered no explanation regarding purchase or consumption of pesticide.

The Supreme Court observed:

“Since the deceased is no more, it was for the Appellant-Accused to explain the circumstances in which the poison was purchased and consumed… Consequently, in the circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Appellant-Accused.”

The Court clarified that Section 106 does not shift the primary burden of proof from the prosecution. However, once the prosecution establishes foundational facts, the accused must explain circumstances especially within his knowledge. Silence or false denial becomes “an additional link in the chain of circumstances.”

By invoking precedents such as Mir Mohammad Omar and Munna Kumar Upadhyay, the Court reinforced that unexplained incriminating facts can fortify an otherwise complete chain in circumstantial evidence cases.

“The Observations Do Not Appear to Be Indicative of Manual Strangulation”: Science Prevails Over Speculation

Another crucial legal principle addressed was the evidentiary value of expert opinion. The original postmortem surgeon had opined death by manual strangulation and hinted at sexual assault. However, AP FSL, CFSL, a State Expert Committee, and AIIMS experts unanimously concluded death due to organophosphate poisoning.

The AIIMS Committee categorically stated:

“The Observations recorded in PM report… do not appear to be indicative of manual strangulation. The Opinion given… appears to be based on a misinterpretation of injuries produced by therapeutic procedures.”

The Supreme Court underscored that expert evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is advisory and must withstand objective scientific scrutiny. A solitary, premature opinion cannot override consistent forensic findings supported by laboratory analysis and hospital records.

The judgment reaffirms that courts must weigh expert testimony against scientific consistency, not accept it blindly.

“Justice Is Served by Truth, Not Public Pressure”: Warning Against Media Trials

The Court also addressed the fallout of sensational media reporting following the premature disclosure of the autopsy opinion. It observed that such conduct distorts public perception and risks derailing investigations.

In strong words, the Bench stated:

“Justice is not served by following majority sentiment or public pressure. Justice is served by truth, established through evidence and impartial investigation.”

The ruling serves as a caution that medico-legal professionals must exercise restraint, particularly when matters are sub judice.

Circumstantial Evidence Found Complete and Unbroken

The Court found that the prosecution had established a complete chain. The accused and deceased were emotionally distressed due to opposition to their marriage. They were last seen together. The accused purchased Nuvacron pesticide shortly before the incident. Both were admitted together after consuming poison. Forensic analysis confirmed organophosphate in viscera. The accused offered no plausible explanation.

In the absence of any alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence, the Court upheld conviction.

DNA Evidence Clarified: Suspicion Cannot Replace Scientific Exclusion

Although male DNA was detected on a cotton swab, STR analysis excluded the accused and other suspected individuals. The Court held that non-production of the CDFD report was immaterial, as it did not incriminate the accused.

The judgment reinforces that DNA findings must be interpreted with scientific caution and cannot be stretched to sustain speculative allegations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling strengthens the jurisprudence on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, clarifies the limits of expert opinion, and reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and consistent chain.

By holding that failure to explain “last seen” circumstances can become an incriminating link, the Court has reaffirmed that silence in the face of exclusive knowledge carries evidentiary consequences.

The appeals were dismissed, and the accused was directed to surrender.

Date of Decision: 17 February 2026