Last Seen Evidence Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case

“The last seen theory cannot, by itself, sustain a conviction unless the chain of circumstances is complete and the motive is proved,” rules Supreme Court, setting aside life sentence in a 2004 Chhattisgarh murder case.

In a landmark ruling with significant implications for criminal jurisprudence and evidentiary standards, the Supreme Court of India on December 18, 2025, in Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh, set aside a life sentence awarded to a man convicted of murder and destruction of evidence, holding that circumstantial evidence based solely on ‘last seen together’ is insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Delivering the judgment, the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled that while the death of the victim was indeed homicidal, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances, and the motive remained unproven.

“Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. Last seen evidence is weak, and unless it closes every possible hypothesis of innocence, the accused must get the benefit of doubt,” held the Court.

Section 106 of Evidence Act Cannot Override Prosecution’s Burden

Rebuking the High Court’s reliance on the accused’s silence as to when he parted company with the deceased, the Supreme Court observed that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which concerns facts within the special knowledge of the accused, does not shift the burden of proof away from the prosecution. The Court stated:

“An adverse inference under Section 106 can only be drawn when the prosecution has first discharged its burden of establishing a complete chain of circumstances. That threshold was not met here.”

Accused Convicted While Co-Accused Acquitted on Same Evidence

The case stemmed from an incident dated June 6, 2004, when the deceased, Yuvraj Singh Patle, was allegedly last seen alive with the appellant, Manoj @ Munna, and a co-accused. The following day, his burnt and injured body was recovered, with post-mortem confirming homicidal death due to burns and other injuries.

The prosecution claimed that the motive was robbery of a tractor, which the accused allegedly wanted to sell to recover a jeep. The trial court, based on two key eyewitnesses (PW-18 and PW-20) and the last seen theory, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, while acquitting five co-accused. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld this conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

No Motive, No Chain, Only Suspicion

The Supreme Court found glaring gaps in the prosecution's case:

“There is no evidence proving the alleged sale or disposal of the tractor, and the theory of looting it for money remained speculative,” the Court noted.

It was further observed that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, but there was no forensic, recovery, confessional, or corroborative evidence linking the appellant directly to the killing. The prosecution merely relied on the testimony of two witnesses who stated that the accused left with the deceased, after which he was never seen alive.

Rejecting the trial court’s assumption of motive, the Supreme Court held:

“Mere presence of an accused with the deceased before death, without further proof of how, when and where the death occurred, is not conclusive.”

“Last Seen Evidence Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction” – SC Reiterates Sharad Sarda Principles

The Court revisited the five golden rules laid down in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), reiterating that:

“Circumstances must not only be fully established, but must exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. A missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.”

In its detailed reasoning, the Court stressed that the time gap between the last seen moment and discovery of death was not narrow enough to exclude the possibility of third-party involvement.

Citing decisions in Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Krishnan @ Ramasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, the bench held that:

“The last seen theory is a weak piece of evidence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction without corroborative links.”

Disproportionate Treatment of Accused: Court Flags Discrimination

In a significant observation, the Court highlighted that five co-accused were acquitted by the trial court on the same evidence, but the appellant was singled out for conviction. The Court termed this a “discriminatory application of evidentiary standards” and stressed the need for consistency in evaluating circumstantial evidence.

“If the same evidence is insufficient to convict others, it cannot be stretched to convict one,” the Court stated.

Section 313 CrPC Statement Cannot Fill Evidentiary Gaps

The Court also dismissed the prosecution’s reliance on the accused’s Section 313 CrPC statement, which contained no effective explanation, as a substitute for proof. It held that:

“Incriminating silence under Section 313 can strengthen a prosecution case only if a complete chain of circumstances has first been proven. That is not the case here.”

Possibility Is Not Proof – Acquittal Directed

Summing up, the Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence fell short of legal standards, and reiterated:

“The accused may be guilty, but unless that is the only possible conclusion flowing from the evidence, conviction cannot be sustained.”

The Court accordingly set aside the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, acquitted the appellant, and discharged his bail bonds.

“We are of the opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant, though raises a doubt that he may have committed the offence, is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the evidence of last seen together. The conviction cannot be sustained.”

Date of Decision: 18 December 2025