Last Seen Is Not Last Word – Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Complete and Compelling: Allahabad High Court

"Mere Suspicion Can't Substitute Proof, Chain of Circumstances Broken", In a significant reaffirmation of the golden principles governing circumstantial evidence in criminal law, the Allahabad High Court acquitted one Om Prakash, who had been languishing under conviction for rape and murder since 1987, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances required to sustain a conviction under Sections 302 and 376 IPC.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I, while allowing Criminal Appeal No. 2480 of 1987, severely criticised the trial court’s reliance on suspicious recoveries, uncorroborated last seen theory, and untrustworthy chance witnesses. The Court found that the prosecution’s version was marred by defective investigation, procedural lapses, and inconsistencies in key testimonies.

“The prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances, so complete, as would discard any other view of the alleged incident,” the Court concluded, extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

“Suspicion Is Not Proof – The Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Must Be Crossed”: Court Recalls Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Principles

At the heart of the judgment is a meticulous application of the ‘panchsheel’ of circumstantial evidence laid down in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622.

The High Court reiterated:

“The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established… not merely ‘may be’, but ‘must be’ proved… and should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.”

The prosecution’s failure to eliminate alternative hypotheses, such as the possibility that the deceased was killed in rage by family members, and the lack of any direct link between the appellant and the crime, made the conviction legally unsustainable.

“Last Seen Is Not Enough – Victim Was Never Seen With Accused, Only Seen Exiting House”: High Court Rejects Crucial Prosecution Link

The prosecution had relied heavily on the “last seen” theory, claiming that the appellant was spotted by a relative and a neighbour leaving the house where the deceased, Sudha, was found dead with a fatal neck injury and signs of sexual assault.

However, the High Court dismantled this theory:

“The appellant was not even last seen with the deceased. He was only seen coming out of the house... Mere sighting of the accused coming out of the house is insufficient to complete the chain of circumstances.”

Referring to precedents including Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar and Bharat v. State of M.P., the Court held that “last seen” theory cannot be the sole basis of conviction unless conclusively supported by other evidence—which was conspicuously absent here.

Chance Witnesses Under the Scanner: “Suddenly Appear, Then Disappear”

The judgment sharply questioned the credibility of two key prosecution witnesses—P.W.-2 (Sheo Kumar) and P.W.-3 (Laxmi Shanker)—labeling them as “chance witnesses” whose presence at the scene was both unnatural and inadequately explained.

The Court observed:

“If P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 had actually seen the accused fleeing, they would have raised an alarm or attempted to intercept him. Their failure to act, coupled with delayed statements, undermines their credibility.”

Citing Manoj v. State of U.P. and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasised that chance witnesses require strict scrutiny, and when their conduct is unnatural or unexplained, their testimony becomes unreliable.

Additionally, Rameshwar—one of the key persons who was allegedly with Sheo Kumar at the time of seeing the accused—was never produced as a witness.

Medical Evidence Inconsistent With Alleged Weapon: "Injury Too Deep for a Knife"

A pivotal aspect that cast doubt on the prosecution’s case was the nature of the neck injury suffered by the deceased. According to the post-mortem report, the wound was 12 cm long, 3.5 cm wide, and bone-deep, severing vital structures including the carotid artery and jugular vein.

The Court noted:

“Such a large, bone-deep injury with clean cut margins could not have been caused by an ordinary knife... The alleged weapon does not match the severity of the wound.”

The prosecution never recovered the weapon or explained this inconsistency. Furthermore, the identity of the alleged accomplice—the second person seen with Om Prakash—remained unascertained, raising further doubts.

Serious Lapses in Investigation: Overwriting, Delays, and Dubious Recoveries

The Court pointed out multiple procedural irregularities and investigative defects:

• Overwriting in Panchayatnama (inquest report), suggesting post-facto tampering.
• Delay in recording key witness statements, especially of PW-3.
• FIR dispatched late despite police station and Magistrate being in the same complex.
• Recovery of book and postcard allegedly belonging to accused without witness signatures—raising the possibility of planting.

The Bench emphasised:

“Though lapses in investigation alone may not be fatal, in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, such lapses assume significance and weaken the prosecution case.”

“Possibility of Alternative Hypothesis Not Ruled Out” – Family Members Could Be Involved

Significantly, the Court also examined the possibility that Sudha was murdered by her own relatives, given the brutality of the wound and the suspiciously orchestrated absence of all household members at the time of incident.

The Court observed:

“Why was Sudha left alone if she was called to take care of a pregnant woman? The chain of events gives rise to the possibility that family members, after discovering her in an intimate relationship, could have acted in rage.”

The defence had suggested that Sudha’s history and the circumstances of her stay at the house could have led to a crime of honour or outrage, which could not be ruled out.

Conviction Set Aside, Accused Acquitted After 39-Year Legal Ordeal

Finding that the prosecution’s case failed to meet the legal threshold, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Om Prakash:

“Where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted... The appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.”

The Court directed that his bail bonds be cancelled and sureties discharged, and also recorded appreciation for Sri Krishna Kant Dubey, the Amicus Curiae, awarding him ₹10,000 in professional fees.

Date of Decision: 16 January 2026