Merely Being Seen In Common Forest Area Insufficient To Invoke 'Last Seen' Theory Under Section 302 IPC Without Proof Of Exclusive Company: Karnataka High Court

"The evidence placing an accused in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, without reliably connecting the accused with the deceased or the commission of the offence, does not by itself possess determinative value." Holding that the mere sighting of an accused in an area commonly frequented by villagers does not satisfy the 'last seen together' doctrine without proof of exclusive company, the Karnataka High Court acquitted a murder convict sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302, 392, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice B. Pramod held that in circumstantial evidence cases, the chain of circumstances must be conclusively established to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, reiterating that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.

The prosecution case arose from an incident on August 20, 2015, where the deceased, who had gone to graze cattle in the Mutthappanagudda forest, was found dead the following morning with an incised wound on her neck. It was alleged that the appellant, along with a juvenile, robbed her gold earrings, maati, and mobile phone, and slit her throat with a machete. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 392, and 201 of the IPC, primarily relying on circumstantial evidence, the last seen theory, and alleged weapon and property recoveries.

The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 392, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC were justified, and whether the evidence of last seen together was sufficient to sustain a conviction in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence.

Evaluating the prosecution's circumstantial framework, the High Court observed that while the medical evidence of PW-3 established the death as homicidal, the prosecution bore the burden of proving that the accused was solely responsible for the crime. The Bench emphasized that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance relied upon must be firmly established by reliable evidence and form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused.

Failure to establish robbery weakens the alleged motive under Section 392 IPC.

The Court scrutinized the alleged motive of robbery and noted glaring contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses regarding the gold earrings and maati. While PW-1 claimed the ornaments were missing, PW-10 deposed that the deceased was wearing them when the body was found and that they were removed only after the inquest. The post-mortem report also revealed no marks or injuries on the earlobes, and the mobile phone was not even mentioned as missing in the initial complaint. The Bench observed that mere recovery of ornaments cannot establish that murder was committed for robbery when the very foundational fact of the ornaments being stolen during the crime remains unproven.

Presence in an open, frequented area cannot constitute 'last seen together' circumstance.

Addressing the last-seen theory, the Bench noted that the forest area where the deceased grazed cattle was a public place frequented daily by villagers, many of whom carried machetes for routine agricultural tasks. PW-13 testified that she last saw the deceased at about 4:00 p.m., when the deceased chose to stay behind, whereas the body was found only the next morning. The Court pointed out that prosecution witnesses contradicted each other regarding their movements, and there was no evidence demonstrating that the appellant was ever in the exclusive company of the deceased.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, the Bench reiterated that the last seen circumstance alone cannot complete the chain of circumstances. The Court held that placing an accused in the general vicinity of the place of occurrence, without reliably connecting him with the deceased shortly before death or excluding the intervention of third parties, possesses no determinative value.

Unexplained timing discrepancies and FSL contradictions vitiate recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act.

The High Court also dismantled the prosecution's recovery evidence regarding the machete, shirt, and ornaments. The Bench discovered a severe contradiction between the deposition of recovery witnesses PW-5 and PW-8, who claimed to have arrived at the police station between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., and the contemporaneous seizure mahazars which recorded recoveries as early as 11:15 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Furthermore, while the police witness claimed human bloodstains were found on the appellant's recovered shirt, the official Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report recorded no bloodstains on the garment, dealing a fatal blow to the recovery link.

Call records without Section 65B Evidence Act certificate lack evidentiary value.

The Bench rejected the prosecution's reliance on electronic call detail records (CDR), noting that the relevant records were not accompanied by a mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of statutory compliance, electronic records cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances.

Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 302, 392, and 201 of the IPC, directing his immediate release from custody.

Date of Decision: October 27, 2026