In CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 972 of 2013-SC- Last seen doctrine has limited application where time lag between time when deceased was seen last with accused and time of murder, is narrow, reaffirms Apex Court
Justices S. Ravindra Bhat & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha [17-01-2023]

Read Order: JABIR & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, January 17, 2023: Highlighting the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court has held that the links between all circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else.

While dealing with the present appeal instituted by the appellants-accused persons assailing their conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, the Division bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha observed that the same deserved to be allowed as the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants was not justified.  

Factual background of the case was such that the  appellants were convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  and sentenced to life imprisonment as well as 7 years u/s 364 and imprisonment for 5 years u/s 201. Their conviction and sentence was upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court. 

Haseen, aged about 7 years, was the son of Bisarat, a resident of village Akbarpur.  He went missing on October 8, 1999 and two days after, his dead body of Haseen was found in the sugarcane field. Subsequently, Bisarat moved an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. 

After investigations were completed, the police, in their final report, alleged that the appellants were guilty of the offences. Charges were framed against them by the court. The prosecution, to establish its allegations, relied on the testimony of 12 witnesses. 

Based on the materials placed before it, the trial court convicted the appellants, who then appealed to the High Court. The impugned judgment affirmed the trial court’s findings. 

After considering the submissions  from both the side, the Court noted, “A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well  as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused”. 

In the present case, save the “last seen” theory, there was  no other circumstance or evidence.

“It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the last seen doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the last seen circumstance”, the Bench held.

According to the Bench, the time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of the accused and the probable time of his death, based on the post mortem report, which was conducted two days later was not narrow.

In furtherance of the same, the Court held that given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants, was not justified. 

For such reasons, the conviction and sentence of the appellant accused could not be sustained, the Bench stated while allowing the appeal.