Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 129
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the case rests primarily on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen together” theory? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was convicted based on the fact that he was last seen with the deceased before the victim’s body was discovered. The court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the chain of circumstances leading to the accused’s guilt.
The Supreme Court, in this judgment, upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the importance of the accused providing a reasonable explanation when they were the last person seen with the deceased. The bench, comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case involves the death of Pratap Singh Sikarwar, who was found dead on December 20, 1995, near village Chachiha. The complainant, Upendra Singh (PW-1), reported that his uncle, Pratap Singh, was last seen with the accused, Ram Gopal, on December 19, 1995. The complaint stated that Pratap Singh had been taken by Ram Gopal from Arhela and that his body was found with injuries on his head and ear.
Ram Gopal, the former Sarpanch of Har Gangoli village, was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. The Sessions Court convicted Ram Gopal, while acquitting the other three accused. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld this conviction, leading Ram Gopal to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 19, 1995, 5:00 PM | Pratap Singh Sikarwar was taken by Ram Gopal from Arhela. |
| December 19, 1995 (Evening) | Pratap Singh and Ram Gopal were seen together at Shripal’s shop in Arhela. |
| December 20, 1995, 9:30 AM | Upendra Singh (PW-1) filed a complaint at Police Station Baghchini about the death of Pratap Singh. |
| December 20, 1995 (Early Morning) | The dead body of Pratap Singh was found near a field at village Chachiha. |
| January 17, 2000 | The Sessions Court convicted Ram Gopal under Section 302 IPC. |
| July 13, 2018 | The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed Ram Gopal’s appeal, upholding the conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Court convicted Ram Gopal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The other three accused were acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence. Ram Gopal appealed the decision to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which upheld the Sessions Court’s conviction. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the “last seen together” theory. The court also considered Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states that when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states: “Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
Arguments
Arguments by the Petitioner (Ram Gopal):
- The prosecution’s case is based solely on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances leading to the petitioner’s guilt.
- The courts below erred in convicting the petitioner merely on the theory of “last seen together,” as there was a significant time gap between when the petitioner was last seen with the deceased and when the body was recovered.
- The recovery of the axe from the petitioner should not be grounds for conviction, as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem did not confirm that the injuries on the deceased were caused by the axe.
- There was no animosity between the deceased and the petitioner; their relations were cordial, as evidenced by PW-1 Upendra Singh and PW-8 Ramshree.
- The benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner, as it was given to the other three co-accused, especially in the absence of any independent witness.
- The petitioner relied on the cases of Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706], Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 883], and Nizam and another vs. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 1 SCC 550] to support his arguments.
Arguments by the Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh):
- The courts below have concurrently found the petitioner guilty, and the Supreme Court should not interfere with these findings.
- The petitioner failed to explain when and how he parted company with the deceased, especially since he was with the deceased the previous evening. This failure is an adverse circumstance against the petitioner.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances. | Petitioner |
| Conviction based solely on “last seen together” theory is insufficient. | Petitioner | |
| Significant time gap between last seen and body recovery. | Petitioner | |
| Recovery of weapon not conclusive. | Petitioner | |
| No independent witness examined. | Petitioner | |
| Concurrent Findings | Courts below have concurrently found the petitioner guilty. | Respondent |
| Supreme Court should not interfere with these findings. | Respondent | |
| Failure to Explain | Petitioner failed to explain when and how he parted company with the deceased. | Respondent |
| This failure is an adverse circumstance. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was justified based on the circumstantial evidence, particularly the “last seen together” theory and the lack of explanation from the accused regarding when he parted company with the deceased.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC is justified based on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen together” theory. | Conviction upheld | The court found that the prosecution had established a chain of circumstances, including the “last seen together” theory, the proximity of time between when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the discovery of the body, and the lack of explanation from the accused. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 10 SCC 623]: The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that when a person is last seen with the deceased, they must offer a probable and satisfactory explanation of how and when they parted company. Failure to do so can be an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
- Satpal vs. State of Haryana [(2018) 6 SCC 610]: This case was used to reiterate that the “last seen together” theory, when coupled with other circumstances like the time of the last sighting and the proximity of the body’s recovery, requires the accused to explain the circumstances of the death.
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court considered this section to determine the punishment for murder.
- Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The court relied on this section to emphasize that when a fact is within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies on that person.
| Authority | Court | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 10 SCC 623] | Supreme Court of India | The court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of the accused providing a reasonable explanation when last seen with the deceased. |
| Satpal vs. State of Haryana [(2018) 6 SCC 610] | Supreme Court of India | The court used this case to reiterate that the “last seen together” theory, when coupled with other circumstances, requires the accused to explain the circumstances of the death. |
| Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | The court considered this section to determine the punishment for murder. |
| Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Statute | The court relied on this section to emphasize that when a fact is within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies on that person. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The prosecution’s case is based solely on circumstantial evidence and failed to prove the entire chain of circumstances. | The court acknowledged that the case was based on circumstantial evidence but found the chain of circumstances, including the “last seen together” theory and the accused’s failure to explain, to be sufficient. |
| The courts below erred in convicting the petitioner merely on the theory of “last seen together”. | The court held that while the “last seen together” theory alone may be weak, it becomes significant when coupled with other circumstances and the accused’s failure to provide an explanation. |
| There was a significant time gap between when the petitioner was last seen with the deceased and when the body was recovered. | The court noted that the time gap was proximate enough to require the accused to explain the circumstances of the deceased’s death. |
| The recovery of the axe from the petitioner should not be grounds for conviction, as the doctor did not confirm that the injuries were caused by the axe. | The court considered the recovery of the axe as corroborative evidence, not the sole basis for conviction. |
| There was no animosity between the deceased and the petitioner. | The court noted that evidence of enmity had surfaced during the trial. |
| The benefit of doubt should be given to the petitioner, as it was given to the other three co-accused. | The court found the evidence against the petitioner to be distinct and sufficient for conviction, unlike the case of the other accused. |
| The petitioner failed to explain when and how he parted company with the deceased. | The court considered this failure to be an adverse circumstance against the petitioner, relying on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The court relied on Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 10 SCC 623]* to emphasize that the accused must provide a reasonable explanation when last seen with the deceased.
- The court followed Satpal vs. State of Haryana [(2018) 6 SCC 610]* to reiterate that the “last seen together” theory, when coupled with other circumstances, requires the accused to explain the circumstances of the death.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the combination of the “last seen together” theory, the proximate time between the last sighting and the discovery of the body, and the accused’s failure to provide any explanation regarding how and when he parted company with the deceased. The court also considered the recovery of the weapon as corroborative evidence. The court emphasized that while the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, places a burden on the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Last seen together theory | 35% |
| Proximity of time between last seen and discovery of the body | 30% |
| Accused’s failure to provide an explanation | 25% |
| Recovery of the weapon | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Deceased was last seen with the accused
Deceased’s body found shortly after
Accused failed to explain the circumstances of separation
Accused’s failure is an additional link in the chain of circumstances
Conviction upheld
The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides, but ultimately sided with the prosecution, emphasizing the importance of the accused providing a reasonable explanation when they were the last person seen with the deceased. The court stated:
“It may be noted that once the theory of “last seen together” was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased.”
The Court also noted:
“In the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him.”
Further, the court observed:
“The time gap between the period when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the recovery of the corpse of the deceased being quite proximate, the non-explanation of the petitioner with regard to the circumstance under which and when the petitioner had departed the company of the deceased was a very crucial circumstance proved against him.”
Key Takeaways
- The “last seen together” theory, when coupled with other circumstances, can be a strong piece of circumstantial evidence.
- When an accused is the last person seen with the deceased, they have a burden to provide a reasonable explanation as to how and when they parted company.
- Failure to provide such an explanation can be used against the accused as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
- The proximity of time between the last sighting and the discovery of the body is a crucial factor in applying the “last seen together” theory.
- The recovery of a weapon can serve as corroborative evidence, even if it is not conclusively linked to the injuries on the deceased.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, particularly when the “last seen together” theory is invoked, the accused has a responsibility to provide a reasonable explanation of their separation from the deceased. This case clarifies that while the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, the accused’s failure to explain facts within their special knowledge can be a crucial factor in establishing guilt. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather it is a reiteration.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Ram Gopal for the murder of Pratap Singh Sikarwar. The court emphasized that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstances, including the “last seen together” theory and the accused’s failure to provide a reasonable explanation, which led to the conclusion of the accused’s guilt. The judgment underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence and the accused’s responsibility to explain facts within their special knowledge.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Murder, Circumstantial Evidence, Last Seen Theory, Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
FAQ
Q: What is the “last seen together” theory?
A: The “last seen together” theory is a principle in law that suggests if a person was last seen with the deceased before their death, it can be a piece of circumstantial evidence in a criminal case. It implies that the person last seen with the deceased might have information about the death.
Q: What is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code?
A: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine.
Q: What is Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act?
A: Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon them. This means that if an accused has special knowledge about a fact, they must provide an explanation for it.
Q: What happens if the accused does not provide an explanation when they were last seen with the deceased?
A: If the accused does not provide a reasonable explanation when they were last seen with the deceased, the court can consider this as an additional link in the chain of circumstances against them. This doesn’t shift the burden of proof from the prosecution but adds weight to the circumstantial evidence.
Q: Can someone be convicted solely based on the “last seen together” theory?
A: While the “last seen together” theory alone may not be sufficient for conviction, it becomes a strong piece of evidence when coupled with other circumstances, such as the proximity of time between the last sighting and the discovery of the body, and the accused’s failure to provide an explanation. It is a part of the circumstantial evidence.