Supreme Court overturns conviction based on ‘last seen’ theory in murder case: R. Sreenivasa vs. State of Karnataka (2023)

Date of the Judgment: September 6, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 803
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of the ‘last seen’ theory, especially when there are inconsistencies in the evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had reversed an acquittal and convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, overturned the conviction, emphasizing the importance of a complete and consistent chain of evidence and the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of one Krishnappa, whose body was found in a field on January 3, 2002. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, R. Sreenivasa (Accused No. 1), along with another individual (Accused No. 2), murdered Krishnappa due to the deceased’s alleged illicit relationship with the appellant’s sister. The prosecution further claimed that the accused attempted to destroy evidence by setting the body on fire using petrol.

The Trial Court acquitted both accused, stating that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was last seen with the accused or that there was an extra-judicial confession. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal of R. Sreenivasa, convicting him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment, while upholding the acquittal of the co-accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, acquitted both the accused of offenses under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, on June 9, 2005. The Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and that the extra-judicial confession was not proven.

Aggrieved by this, the State of Karnataka appealed to the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision concerning the appellant, convicting him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment, while dismissing the appeal against the co-accused.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section pertains to causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense or providing false information to screen an offender. It states, “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment…”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The Trial Court’s acquittal was based on a thorough evaluation of evidence.
• The High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, especially since the roles assigned to both accused were similar.
• There was a significant discrepancy regarding who took the deceased from his house. The charge stated it was A2, but witnesses testified it was the appellant.
• The ‘last seen’ theory was not conclusively proven. The testimony of PW10, who turned hostile, was unreliable.
• The alleged recovery of evidence was not proven, and there was no forensic examination to confirm the blood belonged to the deceased.
• The deceased’s wife stated that there was a cordial relationship between the deceased and the appellant.
• It is improbable that the deceased would accompany the appellant late at night if there was strong animosity.
• The deceased’s family did not report him missing for two to three days.

Respondent-State’s Submissions:

• There was a strong motive for the appellant to kill the deceased.
• The State relied on the decision in State of Rajasthan v Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254], arguing that once the accused is found to be the person with whom the deceased was last seen, the onus shifts to the accused to explain what happened.
• The State argued that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation, which should be considered as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly the discrepancy in who was alleged to have taken the deceased, and the lack of corroborative evidence for the ‘last seen’ theory.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal based on the evidence presented, specifically concerning the ‘last seen’ theory and the circumstantial evidence.

• Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the acquittal of the Trial Court based on the evidence presented.
• Whether the ‘last seen’ theory was conclusively established against the appellant.
• Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished State of Rajasthan v Kashi Ram [(2006) 12 SCC 254]* stating that the ‘last seen’ theory was not established in the present case.
• The Court cited Kanhaiya Lal v State of Rajasthan [(2014) 4 SCC 715]* to emphasize that the ‘last seen’ theory alone is not sufficient for conviction and must be supported by additional evidence.
• The Court cited Nizam v State of Rajasthan [(2016) 1 SCC 550]* to highlight that when there is a long time gap between the last seen and the recovery of the body, it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on the ‘last seen’ theory.
• The Court cited Chotkau v State of Uttar Pradesh [(2023) 6 SCC 742]* to emphasize that the prosecution must establish that the fact is especially within the knowledge of the accused to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
• The Court cited Laxman Prasad v State of Madhya Pradesh [(2023) 6 SCC 399]*, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]* and Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v State of Gujarat [(2020) 14 SCC 750]* to reiterate that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete to indicate the guilt of the accused and exclude any other theory of the crime.
• The Court cited Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra [2023 INSC 749]* to emphasize that the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused and when doubts emanate, the benefit accrues to the accused.
• The Court cited Chandrappa v State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]* to reiterate that an appellate court must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused in the case of an acquittal.
• The Court cited Jafarudheen v State of Kerala [(2022) 8 SCC 440]* to summarize the powers of the appellate Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Discrepancies in Evidence: The Court noted significant inconsistencies between the charge framed by the Trial Court and the statements of witnesses, particularly regarding who took the deceased from his house.
• Doubt on ‘Last Seen’ Theory: The Court found that the ‘last seen’ theory was not conclusively proven, as the testimony of PW10 was unreliable and the deceased’s family did not report him missing for two to three days.
• Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: The Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and did not exclude other theories of the crime.
• Benefit of Doubt: The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is in favor of the accused, and when doubts arise, the benefit must be given to the accused.

The Court’s reasoning was a mix of factual analysis and legal interpretation. The factual discrepancies and the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, particularly the State’s argument based on State of Rajasthan v Kashi Ram, but rejected it because the ‘last seen’ theory was not conclusively established in this case. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

The Court’s decision was based on the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on weak evidence and that the chain of circumstances must be complete to indicate the guilt of the accused. The Court also emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence and the need for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

“The fact that there is major discrepancy in the charge framed by the Court and the statement of the witnesses…is enough to raise doubts with regard to the veracity and authenticity of such statements.”

“The burden on the accused would, therefore, kick in, only when the last seen theory is established. In the instant case, at the cost of repetition, that itself is in doubt.”

“It would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on such evidence, where the chain is clearly incomplete. That apart, the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused and when doubts emanate, the benefit accrues to the accused, and not the prosecution.”

There were no minority opinions. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, both concurring with the decision.

The implications of this judgment are significant for future cases involving circumstantial evidence and the ‘last seen’ theory. It emphasizes the need for a complete and consistent chain of evidence and the importance of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court reiterated existing principles regarding circumstantial evidence, the ‘last seen’ theory, and the presumption of innocence.

Key Takeaways

• The ‘last seen’ theory alone is not sufficient for conviction; it must be supported by other corroborative evidence.
• Discrepancies in the prosecution’s case can raise doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
• A complete chain of circumstantial evidence is necessary for a conviction, and the evidence must exclude other theories of the crime.
• Appellate courts must be cautious while reversing acquittals, considering the double presumption in favor of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. The appellant was discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the ‘last seen’ theory cannot be the sole basis for conviction in a murder case. The prosecution must establish the ‘last seen’ theory beyond a reasonable doubt and provide a complete chain of circumstantial evidence that excludes all other reasonable possibilities. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. This case reinforces the existing legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence and the presumption of innocence, without introducing any new legal doctrines.

Conclusion

In the case of R. Sreenivasa vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the importance of a complete and consistent chain of evidence and the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Court found that the ‘last seen’ theory was not conclusively proven and that there were significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. This judgment reinforces the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on weak evidence and that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.