Last Seen Must Be Proximate and Exclusive: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits of the Doctrine in Murder Appeals

“Substantial Time Gap and No Proof of Continuous Custody” –  In a crucial pronouncement on the evidentiary value of the “last seen together” doctrine, the Delhi High Court held that mere proof of the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused is insufficient unless proximity of time and continuous exclusive custody are established beyond doubt.

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain acquitted the appellants of murder charges under Section 302/34 IPC, ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances. The Court emphasized that the “last seen” doctrine cannot be invoked mechanically, particularly where there is a substantial time gap between the sighting and the recovery of the body.

The judgment significantly strengthens the safeguards against conviction based on incomplete circumstantial links.

Conviction Anchored on Traffic Checkpoint Encounter

The prosecution case revolved around a drunken driving challan issued at 10:43 p.m. on 24 May 2017 in Gurugram. Traffic officials PW-5 and PW-6 testified that the deceased Marshal was seated in the car along with the two appellants when the vehicle was stopped. The deceased had visible injury marks on his face.

The dead body was discovered the next morning at 6:30 a.m. near Orissa Sadan, Dwarka, Delhi.

The Trial Court treated this as a strong “last seen” circumstance, linking the appellants to the homicidal strangulation of the deceased.

The High Court, however, found the reasoning legally unsustainable.

“Doctrine Requires Proximity of Time” – Bench Finds Fatal Gap

The Division Bench carefully analysed the time line. The challan was issued at 10:43 p.m. The body was recovered nearly eight hours later.

The Court observed that the doctrine of last seen together is founded on the presumption that the accused and deceased were in such close temporal proximity that intervention of any third party becomes improbable.

In the present case, there was no evidence to show that the deceased remained in the continuous and exclusive company of the appellants after the traffic stop.

The Court held that: “The doctrine of last seen together requires a proximity of time between the sighting and the death, which is not established in the present case, on facts.”

In the absence of evidence ruling out third-party intervention or supervening circumstances, the inference of guilt could not be sustained.

Conduct at Police Checkpoint Undermines Prosecution Theory

A striking feature noted by the Court was the conduct of the deceased and the appellants at the traffic checkpoint.

PW-6 stated that all occupants, including the deceased, attempted to offer money to avoid issuance of the challan.

The Bench observed that if the deceased had been under threat, coercion, or imminent danger, it would have been natural for him to signal distress or seek assistance from the police officers present at the spot.

The Court reasoned that the absence of any such indication substantially weakens the prosecution narrative.

The Bench found it improbable that individuals planning a homicidal act would voluntarily expose themselves to police scrutiny and continue travelling openly with an injured victim.

Exclusive Custody Not Proved – Benefit of Doubt Follows

The High Court underscored that for the last seen doctrine to operate against the accused, the prosecution must establish that the deceased was in the exclusive custody of the accused until the time of death.

No such evidence was forthcoming.

There was no CCTV footage, no mobile location evidence conclusively proving continuous movement together, and no witness bridging the time gap between the challan and the recovery of the body.

The Court held that the absence of such evidence leaves open multiple hypotheses consistent with innocence.

Supreme Court Precedents Reaffirmed

The Bench relied upon leading Supreme Court judgments including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, Laxman Prasad v. State of M.P., State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan, and Raju v. State of Rajasthan.

Reiterating settled principles, the Court emphasized that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence: Each circumstance must be firmly established.
The chain must be complete and exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence.If one link is missing, conviction cannot stand.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the last seen circumstance, without proof of proximity and exclusivity, was insufficient.

A Warning Against Over-Reliance on Last Seen Theory

The judgment sends a clear message that the last seen theory is not a substitute for proof. It is merely one link in the chain and cannot, by itself, justify conviction unless supported by corroborative circumstances that eliminate doubt.

The Bench observed that the prosecution’s case, when examined holistically, left significant gaps that could not be bridged by suspicion.

Conviction Reversed

Holding that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and that the last seen evidence did not meet the threshold required for conviction, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants.

They were directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

The ruling stands as an important reaffirmation that in criminal trials, particularly those resting on circumstantial evidence, courts must insist on strict proof of proximity and exclusivity before invoking the last seen doctrine.

Date of Decision: 18 February 2026