Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Last Seen Theory: Satpal vs. State of Haryana (01 May 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 01 May 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can the ‘last seen theory’ alone be sufficient to convict someone of murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a young boy was found dead after being last seen with the accused. This judgment explores the nuances of circumstantial evidence and the importance of a complete chain of circumstances in establishing guilt. The bench comprised Justices Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Navin Sinha, with the judgment authored by Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

On 11th September 2007, Krishan Kumar (PW-7) filed a First Information Report (FIR) about his 13-year-old nephew, Kapil Kumar, who had gone missing. Kapil was last seen the previous evening around 6:00 PM when he went to deliver milk. Krishan Kumar and his relative, Richhpal (PW-9), saw Kapil with the appellant, Satpal, at around 9:00 PM on Khairpur Road, Sarangpur, both riding on a bicycle. Kapil did not return home that night. The next morning, his body was found hidden in a heap of dry fodder in Subhash’s fields. It was also noted that Satpal had an argument with Kapil a few days prior over milk payment.

Following Satpal’s arrest, a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 led to the recovery of an atlas bicycle belonging to Krishan Kumar and a milk can with Krishan Kumar’s name on it.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, convicted Satpal under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed this conviction. The case reached the Supreme Court of India after Satpal appealed the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the application of the ‘last seen theory’ within the framework of circumstantial evidence. The relevant legal provisions include:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen the offender.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section pertains to the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles of circumstantial evidence, which require that all links in the chain of circumstances must be complete, leading to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Satpal):

• The body was found far from where he was last seen with the deceased, in the opposite direction.
• It is improbable that he would have carried the body such a long distance.
• The recovery of the bicycle and milk can was fabricated, as a second seizure witness was not examined.
• The appellant would not hide the items near his own house if he were guilty.
• The story of the milk can and a prior altercation were improvements made in court, not mentioned in the FIR or the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• There were contradictions between the statements of PW-7 and PW-9 regarding informing the Sarpanch and the time of discovery of the body.
• There was no evidence that the bicycle belonged to PW-7.
• The deceased’s father was already searching for his son in the morning, creating doubts about the ‘last seen theory’.
• PW-7’s conduct in not informing PW-8 the previous night was unnatural.
• The witnesses were unreliable.
• Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of circumstances, and any missing link should lead to acquittal.
• Recovery based on confession under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be the basis for conviction.

Arguments by the State:

• The deceased was last seen with the appellant the previous night around 9:00 PM on a bicycle and did not return home.
• The body was found the next morning near where they were last seen.
• The post-mortem report estimated the time of death to be between 24-36 hours prior, coinciding with when the deceased was last seen with the appellant.
• There was a motive for the crime due to a prior altercation.
• The appellant’s absconding after the incident was an incriminating factor.
• PW-7 identified the bicycle as his, and the milk can had his name on it.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant based on the ‘last seen theory’ and circumstantial evidence is justified?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and principles:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Pertains to the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: States the burden of proof when facts are within the knowledge of a person.
• Principles of circumstantial evidence: The Court reiterated that all links in the chain of circumstances must be complete to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Last seen theory: The Court emphasized that while the last seen theory alone may be insufficient for conviction, it becomes significant when coupled with other incriminating circumstances.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court upheld the conviction under this section, finding the appellant guilty of murder.
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court upheld the conviction under this section, finding the appellant guilty of causing disappearance of evidence.
• Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court accepted the recovery of the bicycle and milk can as admissible evidence based on the appellant’s disclosure statement.
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court invoked this section to place the burden on the appellant to explain the circumstances of the death, which he failed to do.
• Principles of circumstantial evidence: The Court applied these principles to analyze the evidence, concluding that the chain of circumstances was complete.
• Last seen theory: The Court considered the theory as a crucial piece of evidence, especially when coupled with other incriminating circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The deceased was last seen with the appellant.
• The body was found in the vicinity of where they were last seen.
• The post-mortem report aligned with the time the deceased was last seen with the appellant.
• The appellant’s failure to provide any explanation for the circumstances.
• The recovery of the bicycle and milk can based on the appellant’s disclosure.
• The appellant’s absconding after the incident.
• The motive for the crime due to a prior altercation.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal principles, with a slightly higher emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The ‘last seen theory’ can be a crucial piece of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, especially when coupled with other incriminating factors.
• The accused bears the burden of explaining the circumstances when the facts are within their knowledge.
• Minor contradictions in witness statements are not always sufficient to discredit their testimony if the core of their evidence is consistent.
• The recovery of evidence based on a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be a significant factor in establishing guilt.
• Absconding after an incident can be considered an incriminating factor against the accused.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reiterated the established principles of the ‘last seen theory’ and circumstantial evidence. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the ‘last seen theory’, when coupled with other incriminating circumstances, can be a valid basis for conviction, especially when the accused fails to provide any explanation for the circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Satpal for murder. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances, including the ‘last seen theory,’ the recovery of incriminating evidence, and the appellant’s conduct, which led to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the crime. The judgment emphasizes the importance of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the accused in such cases.