Last Seen Alone With Deceased Is Not Enough Without Corroboration: Orissa High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder of Foster Daughter After 19 Years in Prison

“Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Substitute Proof”:- In a powerful reaffirmation of fundamental criminal jurisprudence, the Orissa High Court acquitted Rajendra Jain, who had been convicted and imprisoned for nearly two decades for the alleged murder of his foster daughter, Pinky Jain. Setting aside the judgment dated November 28, 2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2006, the Division Bench comprising Justice Chittaranjan Dash and Justice S.K. Sahoo ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution had alleged that on December 27, 2005, Rajendra Jain murdered Pinky Jain, who was his foster daughter and the wife of the informant (P.W.10). It was claimed that Pinky was last seen alone with the appellant when her husband and foster mother left for work. Upon returning at 5:00 p.m., the informant found the house locked. Breaking it open with the help of locals, he discovered the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Multiple blood-stained weapons, including a hammer, screwdrivers, knives, and a spade, were found near the body. A blood-stained brown pant, allegedly belonging to the appellant, was also recovered.

The trial court convicted Rajendra Jain under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen together” theory.

Court's Observations on the 'Last Seen' Theory and Chain of Circumstances:
Quoting Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench underscored the cardinal principle that: “The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established... and must form a chain so complete as to exclude every hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused.”

Applying this principle, the Court rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen” theory, stating: “None of the neighbouring witnesses categorically deposed to having seen the deceased and the appellant together on the morning of the incident… In the absence of a clear and unblemished chain of circumstances, the 'last seen' theory loses its probative force.”

The Court found that apart from the informant (P.W.10), there was no independent corroboration to establish the presence of the appellant with the deceased during the crucial hours. The neighbours—P.Ws. 2, 3, and 4—either explicitly denied such a sighting or failed to support the theory. There was also no scientific evidence to determine the precise time of death.

On Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothing and Weapons: One of the key evidentiary planks for the prosecution was the alleged recovery of a brown pant stained with blood, said to belong to the appellant. The Court, however, found this claim unsubstantiated:

“None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed with certainty that the said pant belonged to the appellant… The mere presence of the pant at the scene, even if stained with blood, cannot by itself establish a nexus with the appellant in the absence of such proof.”

The Bench also noted that the shared nature of the household made it entirely plausible that multiple individuals' belongings, including the informant’s, could have been present in the house.

Motive Ground Found Speculative and Unsupported by Medical Evidence: The prosecution had attempted to establish motive by alleging that the appellant had “lustful eyes” on the deceased and used to call her at night to massage him inappropriately. However, the Court categorically rejected this motive as speculative, observing: “Even if assumed arguendo, the prosecution established some discomfort in the household, that alone cannot elevate suspicion into motive for murder.”

Importantly, the post-mortem report explicitly ruled out any signs of sexual assault. The Court held: “The medical opinion significantly weakens the prosecution’s narrative of motive, leaving a wide evidentiary gap.”

On Attempted Suicide and Absconding:
The prosecution had also relied on the fact that the appellant was found unconscious on a bridge, allegedly after consuming poison, to suggest consciousness of guilt. But the Court refused to draw such an inference: “Such conduct, in isolation, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of involvement in the crime… In the absence of corroborative evidence, it falls short of the standard required to infer guilt.”

Defence Version Not Rebutted—Doubt Prevails: The testimony of the foster mother (D.W.1), though not conclusively establishing an alibi, introduced reasonable doubt. Her assertion that the appellant had left for Calcutta earlier in the day was not disproved by the prosecution. As the Bench noted:
“Her narrative offers an alternative possibility. It does not firmly rebut the prosecution’s case, but it reinforces the existence of reasonable doubt.”

In its closing remarks, the High Court forcefully reiterated that criminal convictions cannot rest on conjecture or moral conviction: “Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof. The gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case render the conviction unsafe.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the trial court's conviction and directed that Rajendra Jain, who had already served close to 19 years in custody, be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2025