"Last Seen Theory Alone Can't Prove Guilt": Madras High Court Acquits Murder Convict

The Madras High Court, on September 6, 2024, acquitted the appellant, C. Vignesh Kumar, who was convicted of murder by a lower court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The bench, comprising Justices M.S. Ramesh and C. Kumarappan, ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including the "last seen" theory and alleged recovery of incriminating materials, was unreliable and riddled with contradictions. The court emphasized that mere reliance on the "last seen together" theory is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a murder trial.

In 2015, the appellant, C. Vignesh Kumar, was accused of murdering his neighbor, Prabakaran. The prosecution's case was built on the claim that Prabakaran had discovered an extramarital relationship between the accused and a woman named Divya (PW15). Allegedly blackmailed by the deceased, Vignesh Kumar is said to have taken Prabakaran to a secluded spot and killed him. The lower court had convicted Vignesh Kumar based on witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The appellant filed an appeal challenging this conviction, claiming that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations with conclusive evidence.

The court scrutinized the testimonies that supported the "last seen theory," particularly the statements of PW2 (the wife of the deceased), who testified that she had seen her husband leave with the accused on his motorcycle shortly before the murder. The court, however, found significant inconsistencies in these statements, particularly when juxtaposed with those of PW1 (the deceased’s son), who arrived at the scene after the incident. Noting contradictions between these accounts, the court stated:

"The last seen theory alone cannot establish guilt unless supported by other compelling evidence that completes the chain of circumstances."

This observation draws from prior Supreme Court rulings, which emphasize that the "last seen together" principle requires corroborative evidence to reach a conviction.

Motive: The prosecution claimed that the motive for the murder was the deceased’s knowledge of the appellant’s extramarital affair with Divya. However, upon cross-examination, Divya denied any such relationship. The court pointed out that the prosecution had failed to substantiate this alleged motive with reliable evidence. The bench remarked:

"Motive plays a vital role in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and in this instance, the prosecution failed to establish any credible motive that could link the accused to the crime."

Recovery of Evidence: The court also questioned the legitimacy of the recovered evidence, including a blood-stained shirt allegedly belonging to the accused and a voter ID card found at the scene of the crime. PW8, a witness to the alleged confession and recovery of the shirt, provided conflicting statements about the confession process, casting doubt on the validity of the recovery.

The court noted: "The purity of the recovery process is compromised when key witnesses present contradictions, thereby rendering the evidence unreliable."

In its reasoning, the High Court reiterated that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish a clear and unbroken chain of events leading to the crime. The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Sahadevan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which underscores that suspicion, even if strong, cannot substitute for proof.

The bench explicitly stated: "In a case of circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the evidence presented is marred by contradictions, and the prosecution has failed to prove its case convincingly."

The Madras High Court’s ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough, consistent, and corroborated evidence in cases built on circumstantial grounds. By overturning the conviction, the court emphasized that mere reliance on the "last seen together" theory or inconsistent witness statements cannot justify a life sentence. This acquittal highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases involving serious charges such as murder.

Date of Decision: September 6, 2024

C. Vignesh Kumar vs. The State