"Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder

"Circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who has committed the crime." Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 7, 2026, held that the "last seen together" theory cannot form the sole basis for a murder conviction, particularly when there is a wide time gap before the discovery of the body.

A division bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed that there must be independent corroborating evidence establishing a clear nexus between the accused and the crime, setting aside a life sentence awarded to a man based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Strict Standard For Circumstantial Evidence

The court began by reiterating the settled jurisprudence surrounding circumstantial evidence. The bench emphasised that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The judges noted that the chain of evidence must be so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

Singular Circumstance Insufficient For Conviction

Evaluating the prosecution's reliance on the "last seen together" theory, the court scrutinised the testimonies of the deceased's mother and brother. While the court accepted that the accused and the deceased were seen together at 11:00 p.m., it highlighted the fatal flaw in the prosecution's timeline. The bench noted that the injured body was discovered between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., creating a wide time gap of approximately four hours.

The court observed that this significant gap failed to rule out the possibility of a third person intervening. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Kanhaiyalal v. State of Rajasthan and Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand, the bench held that the last seen theory is a weak link unless the prosecution establishes a narrow time gap. The court ruled that something more was required to establish connectivity between the accused and the crime.

Unnatural Conduct Of A 'Got-Up' Eyewitness

The prosecution had also introduced a watchman as an eyewitness, who claimed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased with a beer bottle at midnight. The court completely discarded this testimony, labelling him a "got up witness" planted by the prosecution. The bench observed that the witness's conduct of going back to sleep after witnessing a brutal assault, without informing the police or the victim's family, was wholly unnatural.

Furthermore, the court took strong exception to the manner in which the identification was conducted. The bench noted that no Test Identification Parade was held, and the witness explicitly admitted in cross-examination that he identified the accused at the police station solely because the police instructed him to do so.

"Mere suspicion, however strong it may be, is not enough and cannot take the place of proof."

Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof

Addressing the prosecution's attempt to establish a motive, the court noted allegations of a prior quarrel that took place four to six months before the incident. However, the bench observed that no formal police complaint was ever lodged regarding this dispute, and the investigating officer admitted to collecting no evidence regarding the same.

The court stated that while the presence of motive in a circumstantial case may create a strong suspicion against the accused, suspicion cannot take the place of a conclusive proof. The bench explicitly held that suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Inconclusive Forensic Evidence And CDRs

The court further dismantled the prosecution's technical and forensic evidence. The Chemical Analyser's report regarding blood-stained clothes allegedly recovered from the accused yielded inconclusive results regarding the blood grouping. Similarly, fingerprint expert reports found no prints on the recovered beer bottles.

Regarding the Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing that the appellant called the deceased shortly before they met, the court held that this only proved contact. The bench concluded that by themselves, the CDRs were entirely insufficient to connect the appellant with the actual commission of the murder in the absence of other incriminating material.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the 2019 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The court acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The bench directed his immediate release upon executing a personal release bond of Rs. 25,000 under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Date of Decision: 07 April 2026