'Last Seen' Theory Alone Insufficient To Convict For Murder Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Two In Charred Body Case

"Circumstance of 'last seen together' does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing the connectivity between the accused and the crime," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated April 27, 2026, held that the "last seen together" theory cannot form the sole basis for a murder conviction in cases resting on circumstantial evidence unless it is supported by other corroborative links.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed that the gap between the accused "may be guilty" and "must be guilty" is long and must be traversed by the prosecution with conclusive evidence. The court noted that while the theory is a relevant factor, it is "hazardous" to rely on it exclusively when the chain of circumstances is incomplete.

The case involved the abduction and murder of a woman whose charred remains were found in a forest in Karnataka in 2013. The prosecution alleged that the victim’s brother (Accused No. 1) conspired with the appellants (Accused Nos. 2 and 4) to kill her over financial and property disputes. While the trial court and High Court convicted all accused based on "last seen" testimony and joint discovery of the body and ornaments, the appellants challenged their conviction before the top court.

The primary question before the court was whether the "last seen together" theory, in the absence of a proven motive or valid recovery, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The court was also called upon to determine the admissibility of "joint" discovery statements made by multiple accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Rigorous Standard Of Circumstantial Evidence

The Court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the proved facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Referencing the landmark Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the bench reiterated that the circumstances must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

The bench noted that the "mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." It held that the prosecution failed to bridge this gap regarding the appellants, who were allegedly mere accomplices to the main accused.

Limitations Of The Last Seen Theory

The Court observed that the last seen theory is applicable only when the time gap between the point the accused and deceased were seen alive and the discovery of the body is so small that it excludes any third-party intervention. However, the bench clarified that even in such instances, the courts must look for corroboration.

The judges held that it would be "too risky" to affirm a conviction for a serious offence like murder solely on this circumstance. The bench remarked that "the circumstance of ‘last seen together’ does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime."

Joint Discovery Statements Termed A "Myth"

The Court heavily criticized the reliance placed by lower courts on "joint" discovery panchanamas where multiple accused allegedly pointed to the same spot. Citing State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the bench noted that joint or simultaneous disclosure is often a "myth" as multiple people do not utter informatory words in a chorus.

The bench observed that it is difficult for a witness to depose which accused spoke what specific words and in what sequence. In this case, since the Investigating Officer failed to record the exact words of each appellant and attributed the primary discovery to Accused No. 1, the evidence was deemed inadmissible against the appellants.

No Rediscovery Of Facts Already Known To Police

The Court reiterated the established legal principle that once a fact has already been discovered, any subsequent information given by another accused cannot lead to a "rediscovery" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Since the location of the body was already identified by the first accused, the subsequent "pointing out" by the appellants carried no legal weight.

The bench noted that the "safeguards contemplated by Section 27 are not evident" in the joint panchanama. Without these safeguards, the discovery of the place where the deceased was killed or burnt could not be utilized as incriminating evidence against the appellants.

Absence Of Motive For Accomplices

While the prosecution established a clear motive for the victim's brother (Accused No. 1) regarding a 20-lakh rupee debt, the Court found no evidence of motive for the appellants. The bench noted that the appellants had "no axe to grind against the deceased" and were portrayed as associates without any personal enmity.

The Court held that while the prosecution's case "may be true," it failed the "must be true" test required for criminal conviction. Consequently, the bench found that the chain of evidence was broken, leaving the "last seen" theory as an isolated and insufficient circumstance.

"The prosecution case 'may be true' but it is not that of 'must be true', and there is a long distance to travel between 'may be' and 'must be'."

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. It set aside the High Court's judgment and acquitted the appellants of all charges, including murder and evidence destruction, directing their immediate release.

Date of Decision: 27 April 2026