‘Last Seen’ Needs Company of Deceased: Rajasthan HC Acquits

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 30.05.2014 the appellant reported finding his brother dead in his house with head injuries, and an FIR was registered against unknown persons under Sections 449 and 302 IPC (paras 2-3). The investigating officer concluded that the informant was the killer, arrested him on 03.06.2014 and recovered an axe and washed clothes at his instance on 05.06.2014 (paras 4, 16, 60, 65). There was no eyewitness (para 57). On 22.09.2017 the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh camp Gharsana, convicted him under Sections 302 and 449 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment (paras 1, 8), relying on the recoveries, last seen evidence, an extra-judicial confession and motive (paras 9, 29, 73, 85). He appealed (para 1).

Court's Findings

Applying the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda conditions (para 57), the Division Bench accepted that the recoveries were proved and that their timing was not fatal (paras 60-64). But the clothes had been washed before recovery, and a washed black shirt could not show visible bloodstains (para 65). The FSL report found human blood, yet the blood group was inconclusive for six of eight articles, including the shirt and the axe; human blood without a group match was not a safe basis to convict (paras 67-69). ‘Last seen’ requires the deceased to be seen alive in the accused’s company close to the occurrence; one witness saw the appellant only wandering outside the deceased’s house, which faced his own (paras 74-75, 83-84). An admission allegedly made when the police brought him for recovery was not an extra-judicial confession: he had no intimacy with the witnesses, many people were present and he was in custody (para 90). Estrangement without any quarrel or litigation raised suspicion, not motive (paras 93-95). The arrest rested on surmise and breached Section 41 CrPC (paras 99, 103-105). The withheld dog-squad report and the absence of blood on the mud-plastered wall added doubt (paras 113, 116).

Legal Principle

In a case on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be fully established and the chain must exclude every other hypothesis. ‘Last seen’ applies only when the accused was seen with the deceased alive at a proximate time; an admission made in police custody is not an extra-judicial confession; and suspicion of motive cannot replace proof (paras 57, 83, 90, 95).

Precedents Relied Upon

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
Applied Discussed at ¶ 57, 117
Five conditions (the ‘panchsheel’) must be fulfilled before a conviction can rest on circumstantial evidence; the prosecution here failed to prove them.
State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 79
The last-seen theory comes into play only where the time gap between the accused and the deceased being last seen alive and the death is so small that anyone else being the author of the crime is impossible.
Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh 2016 (12) SCC 251
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 80
A conviction cannot rest only on the circumstance of last seen together; the prosecution must complete the chain of circumstances.

View all precedents (29)

Krishan Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1180
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 82-83
The last seen theory is inapplicable without positive evidence that the accused and the deceased were seen together and alive at a time proximate to the occurrence.
Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 2002 CriLJ 4664; (2002) 8 SCC 45
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 23, 81
Cited by the appellant on last seen evidence and listed by the Court among decisions reiterating the last-seen principle.
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 81
Listed among decisions reiterating the last-seen principle.
Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 1656
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 81
Listed among decisions reiterating the last-seen principle.
Hatti Singh v. State of Haryana (2007) 12 SCC 471
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 81
Listed among decisions reiterating the last-seen principle.
Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 88
An extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence to be appreciated with great care and caution; its value depends on the veracity of the witness to whom it is made.
Sunil Rai @ Paua & Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2011) 12 SCC 258
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18, 23, 28, 89
An oral extra-judicial confession made before a person with whom the maker has no intimate relationship is not a strong piece of evidence and can only be used for corroboration.
Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 96
Motive may be an important circumstance in a case on circumstantial evidence, but suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Abdul Hamid & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1996 RCC 12
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 18, 70, 72
Cited by the appellant on failure to examine the accused’s blood group; the Court found such cases involved a mutual fight or scuffle, unlike this one.
Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwara v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 4 RLW 3490; 2008 (2) Cri.L.R. (Raj.) 1701
Distinguished Discussed at ¶ 18, 70, 72
Cited by the appellant on failure to examine the accused’s blood group; the Court found such cases involved a mutual fight or scuffle, unlike this one.
Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015) 12 SCC 644
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 23, 28, 32
Cited by the appellant on last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession and motive.
Smt. Leela v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 135/1995, decided on 13.10.2023 (Rajasthan High Court)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 23
Cited by the appellant on last seen evidence.
Jagta v. State of Haryana (1974) 4 SCC 747
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 28
Cited by the appellant on extra-judicial confession.
Sharvan Ram Nayak v. State of Rajasthan (2019) 2 RLW 1676
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 28
Cited by the appellant on extra-judicial confession.
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400; 2022 AIR (SC) 5110
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 28
Cited by the appellant on extra-judicial confession.
Shatrughan v. State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2016, decided on 20.07.2023 (Supreme Court)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 28, 39
Cited by the appellant on extra-judicial confession and on the size of injuries matching the weapon.
Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 Cri. L.J. 1726
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 28
Cited by the appellant on extra-judicial confession.
Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 192
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 32
Cited by the appellant on motive.
Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 32
Cited by the appellant on motive.
Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel (2004) 10 SCC 583
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 36, 115
Cited by the appellant on delay in recording witness statements; the Court held the delay here not fatal.
Md. Anowar Hussain v. State of Assam 2023 Cri.L.J. (SC) 609
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 46
Cited by the State on motive.
Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 9 SCC 799
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 46
Cited by the State on motive.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh (1999) 4 SCC 370
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 48-49
Cited by the State for the proposition that the investigating officer can prove a recovery if its witnesses turn hostile.
Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1978) 4 SCC 435
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 48-49
Cited by the State for the proposition that the investigating officer can prove a recovery if its witnesses turn hostile.
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 50
Cited by the State for the submission that the presence of human blood is sufficient to convict.
State of Karnataka v. Suvarnamma (2015) 1 SCC 323
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 53
Cited by the State on previous animosity and motive.

Seen Outside Deceased’s House Is Not ‘Last Seen’: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man of Brother’s Murder

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court

Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen

Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court