Not Every Delay Dilutes the Last Seen Theory When Forensic Trail Is Clear: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Based on Circumstantial Evidence

“Given the subsequent recovery of the gun and forensic linkage with pellets found in the deceased’s body, the time lapse in the last seen theory becomes inconsequential.” - Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that a well-established chain of circumstantial evidence, when supported by forensic and scientific proof, can lead to conviction — even in absence of direct eyewitness testimony.

Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, speaking for the Bench, held that “the prosecution’s case is not mere conjecture, but rather based on established circumstances and facts.” The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused Chetan and upheld his conviction under Sections 302 and 404 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

“Suspicion May Not Be Proof, But Science Can Seal Guilt”: Apex Court Reiterates

The core legal issue revolved around the acceptability of circumstantial evidence — specifically, whether the so-called “last seen together” theory could be safely relied upon after a three-day time gap between the accused and deceased being last seen, and the recovery of the body.

The Court decisively ruled that “given the subsequent recovery of the gun and empty pellets and forensic and ballistic evidence of a link between the pellets recovered from the body of the deceased and the gun recovered, the time lapse which could have thrown doubt on the last seen theory pales into insignificance, rather it is rendered inconsequential.”

The Case and the Killing

The deceased, Vikram Shinde, was a young man last seen with the accused, Chetan, on the night of 10 July 2006, riding a motorcycle in Belgaum district. They were seen by multiple witnesses, including the deceased's brother and acquaintances. Three days later, Shinde’s decomposed body was discovered in a sugarcane field. His head bore fatal gunshot injuries.

The prosecution argued that the motive was a financial dispute over a loan of ₹4,000. While the trial court held that the motive wasn't fully established, it still found the circumstantial evidence compelling.

The trial court convicted the accused based on last seen theory, recovery of the murder weapon — a 12-bore double barrel gun — from the house of the accused’s grandfather, recovery of the victim’s gold chain and mobile phone, and forensic evidence linking the weapon to the injuries found on the body. The High Court affirmed the decision. Chetan then approached the Supreme Court.

Apex Court: “Not Every Delay Dilutes the Last Seen Theory”

Addressing the appellant’s argument that a three-day delay weakens the “last seen” inference, the Court observed:

“It cannot be said that the time gap is for a considerable long period... in view of the medical evidence that death occurred about 3 to 4 days prior.”

The Court rejected the defence’s argument that the possibility of another person committing the crime could not be ruled out in that time.

Citing the established precedent in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reminded that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, “there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”

“Science Speaks Louder Than Speculation”: Forensic Link to Weapon and Wounds Proved Crucial

The double-barrel gun, two spent cartridges, and live rounds were recovered from the appellant's grandfather’s house. Forensic expert PW-30 testified:

“The D.B.B.L gun bears signs of discharge and was in working condition at the time of examination. Pellets and wads recovered from the skull cavity could have been fired from the recovered weapon.”

The Court was convinced that this scientific link formed an unbroken chain of events pointing to guilt.

In the words of the Bench:

“The forensic and ballistic opinion, along with the subsequent recovery of the gun, pellets and wads, and the gold chain from the appellant, obliterates the doubtful element which can be attributed to the gap in time and space of the last seen together aspect of the circumstantial evidence.”

Court’s Final Finding: “Flight and Falsehood Add to Guilt”

The accused’s conduct after the crime further incriminated him. The Court noted:

“The appellant had misled his friends, his family members and that of the deceased... and remained hidden from 11.07.2006 till 22.07.2006. This is clearly indicative of the guilty mind.”

Citing this, the Court stated that the appellant’s abscondence was a relevant circumstance under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Rejecting the defence’s critique of inconsistencies in witness testimony, the Court held:

“Despite several witnesses turning hostile, the last seen theory is reinforced by scientific evidence... and thus, the prosecution’s case is not vitiated.”

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had not only proved the “last seen together” theory, but had corroborated it with “strong and consistent circumstantial evidence supported by scientific proof.”

“When read in conjunction with the recovery of weapon and forensic evidence, the conclusion becomes inescapable.”

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of Chetan was upheld.

Date of Decision: 30 May 2025