Manoj @ Munna vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

2025 INSC 1466

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2013
MANOJ @ MUNNA … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.


1. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated
11.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal
Appeal No.306/2008, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences
1
under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him
to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous
imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of
fine amounts, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and
03 months respectively.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
LOKESH ARORA
Date: 2025.12.18
18:42:24 IST
Reason:


1
“IPC”
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 1 of 14


A. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. According to the prosecution, on 07.06.2004, the appellant, along with five
co-accused, committed dacoity and, during its commission, caused the death of
Yuvraj Singh Patle. The accused were, therefore, charged under Sections 302,
302/34, 396, 201 and 120-B of the IPC for murder, dacoity with murder,
criminal conspiracy, and causing disappearance of evidence. It was further
alleged that on 06.06.2004, the appellant was last seen with the deceased. The
appellant had taken him on his motorcycle from Salhevara. The deceased was
subsequently found dead on the next day, i.e., 07.06.2004
3. The dead body of Yuvraj Singh Patle was sent for autopsy to Primary
Health Center, Gandai where Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW 13) vide Ex. P-20 found
the following injuries:
i) Burn injury found over body of 2-3 degree.
ii) Body was decomposed.
iii) Hairs were pilling off.

iv) Swelling over stratum and penis.
v) Two ligature marks over the neck.
vi) Lacerated wound over right temporal region of 2 x 2 x 1 c.m.
vii) Lacerated wound over right collar bone.
viii) Both palms were burnt.
ix) Burn injury over the legs were found.

According to Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW 13), the cause of death was shock and burn
injury and the death was homicidal in nature.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as
many as 26 witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where he denied the circumstances
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 2 of 14


appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime
in question.
5. The Trial Court, while acquitting the remaining five accused, convicted the
appellant by placing reliance on the testimonies of Bedram (PW-18), Chamru
Singh (PW-20) and D.S. Marko, Executive Magistrate (PW-22), particularly with
respect to the last seen theory. The Trial Court held that the appellant had
caused the death of the deceased while returning from the house of Mangal Patle
on a motorcycle. The medical evidence, according to the Trial Court, established
that attempts had been made to burn the body with the intention of destroying
the evidence. The Trial Court further found that the appellant had looted the
tractor after murdering the driver, Yuvraj Singh Patle, for the purpose of
arranging money. On this basis, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution
had successfully proved the motive and established a complete chain of
circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant.
6. The High Court in the impugned judgment affirmed the conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court on the basis of the last seen theory and the
fact that the appellant did not offer any explanation as to when he left the
company of the deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle. In absence of such explanation and
circumstance, the High Court held that only inference possible was that it was
the appellant who committed homicidal death amounting to murder of Yuvraj
Singh Patle and with a view to conceal the evidence of crime, the appellant burnt
the dead body of Yuvraj Singh Patle.


Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 3 of 14


B. SUBMISSIONS
7. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant would submit that
since the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of
circumstances is not complete. The evidence adduced by the prosecution suffer
from infirmities and contradictions. It was submitted that a similar set of
evidence was rejected in respect of other five accused persons, but the same
evidence were relied upon against the appellant which has resulted in
discrimination against the appellant. Further, the depositions of Bedram (PW-
18) and Chamru Singh (PW-20) regarding the last seen theory are not reliable. It
was also submitted that the prosecution totally failed to prove the motive to
commit the murder of the deceased. Thus, learned Amicus Curiae argued that
since the chain of circumstances is not complete as against the appellant, the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the Trial Court
and the High Court, after careful examination of the evidence, rightly came to a
conclusion that the evidence of ‘last seen together’ has been duly proved which
along with other incriminating circumstances is sufficient to convict the
appellant.
9. The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.

C. ANALYSIS
10. The only question that arises for our consideration is — whether the Trial
Court and the High Court were correct in convicting the appellant solely on the
basis of the theory of last seen together?
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 4 of 14


11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the case of the prosecution is
based purely on circumstantial evidence in the form of motive and last seen
together, since there is lack of ocular version of the crime. The fact that the death
was homicidal in nature was duly proved by Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW-13) who
conducted the autopsy. Large number of injuries were found on the body of the
deceased and the cause of death was shock and burn injury. Thus, there is no
doubt on the aspect that the death of Yuvraj Singh Patle was homicidal in nature.
12. It is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial
evidence can be made the basis of conviction of an accused person if it is of such
a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and
is consistent only with his guilt. The incriminating circumstances being used
against the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and
must exclude every other possibility of innocence of the accused and if the
circumstances proved against the accused, in a particular case, are consistent
with the innocence of the accused, he will be entitled to the benefit of doubt.
13. This Court in a landmark judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs.
2
State of Maharashtra laid down the five golden rules to be kept in mind while
appreciating circumstantial evidence. The same reads thus:
“ 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be
proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao

2
(1984) 4 SCC 116
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 5 of 14

(emphasis supplied)

3
14. Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. State of Gujarat
Further, in the case of , this
Court held that while convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence,
there should remain no circumstance which aligns with the innocence of the
accused. The observations made by this Court read thus:
“ 7. It is well-established that in a case resting on circumstantial
evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution,
must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused
and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be
considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even
in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to
bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a
given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing
link may be fatal to the prosecution case.”

(emphasis supplied)


3
(1978) 1 SCC 228
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 6 of 14


15. Having noted the principles governing a case based purely on
circumstantial evidence, we now proceed to discuss the evidence as put forth by
the prosecution in bringing home the charges against the appellant:

last seen theory. Bedram (PW-18) deposed that the appellant and co-accused
Bhagwandas had requested the deceased, Yuvraj Singh Patle, who was the driver
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 7 of 14


of the tractor, to take the tractor to Salhevara. Acting upon this request, PW-18
instructed the deceased and Chamru Singh (PW-20), to proceed to Salhevara
with the tractor.
17. Chamru Singh (PW-20) informed Bedram (PW-18) that after reaching
Salhevara, the deceased left him there on the request of the accused persons,
who asked him to remain behind. Thereafter, both, the appellant and
Bhagwandas, proceeded towards Banjari along with the deceased on the tractor,
stating that they were going to collect cable wire. However, none of them, neither
the deceased nor the appellant, returned with the tractor that night.
18. Chamru Singh (PW-20) further deposed that on 06.06.2004 he had
accompanied the deceased to Salhevara by tractor. Upon their arrival, they met
the appellant and Bhagwandas, who invited them for tea at Tihati Hotel.
Thereafter, both the accused informed him that they were proceeding to Banjari
with the deceased and the tractor to collect cable wire, and asked PW-20 to wait.
19. According to PW-20, before departing for Banjari, the appellant and the
deceased took him on the motorcycle to the house of one Mangal Patle and
instructed him to stay there for the night, assuring that they would return
shortly. The witness waited the entire night, but neither the deceased nor the
accused came back.

20. On the following day, PW-20 waited until around 2:00 p.m. When neither
the accused nor the deceased returned, he travelled back to his village
Rengakhar by bus, where he met Bedram (PW-18) and narrated the entire
sequence of events. Thereafter, both PW-18 and PW-20 undertook a search for
the tractor and the deceased at Banjari, but found that no cable laying work was
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 8 of 14


underway, and neither the deceased nor the tractor could be traced even on the
next day.
21. Further, as per the evidence of D.S. Marko, Executive Magistrate (PW-22),
present appellant was placed for identification inside the jail and he was
identified by the witnesses. Thus, in the present case, factum of identification
and Dok identification have been well established by Bedram (PW-18) and
Chamru Singh (PW-20).
22. Thus, from the testimonies of Bedram (PW-18) and Chamru Singh (PW-
20), the prosecution has been able to prove that deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle was
last seen alive in the company of the appellant and co-accused Bhagwandas at
Salhevara on the evening of 06.06.2004. The accused persons took the deceased
along with them towards Banjari on the pretext of fetching cable wires, after
leaving Chamru Singh (PW-20) behind at the house of Mangal Patle . Thereafter,
Yuvraj Singh Patle was never seen alive again, and his dead body was
subsequently recovered.
23. Keeping in view the above-stated testimonies, the crucial question is —
whether the evidence of last seen together is sufficient enough to convict the
appellant in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?
24. The doctrine of last seen rests on the logical presumption that where an
individual is last seen alive in the close company of an accused, and is soon
thereafter found dead, the accused must reasonably account for the
circumstances in which they parted ways, as such facts fall particularly within
his knowledge. Thus, it rests on the presumption that human behavior follows
natural probabilities, and, hence, the person who was last seen with the
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 9 of 14


deceased must be able to explain the facts that resulted in the subsequent death
of the deceased.
4
25. Recently in the case of Padman Bibhar vs. State of Odisha , this Court,
speaking through one of us (Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.), while acquitting the
accused of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC held that the
conviction cannot be sustained against the accused merely on the ground that
the accused was last seen with the deceased.
5
26. In Rambraksh vs. State of Chhattisgarh , this Court observed that the
last seen theory applies only when the time gap between the last seen point and
the discovery of the death is so small that no one else could have committed the
crime. Even then, this circumstance alone is insufficient and the prosecution
must establish a complete chain of circumstances proving the accused’s guilt.
In the said decision, this Court held as under:
“12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against
the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen
with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based
on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last
seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the
point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last
alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that
possibility of any person other than the accused being the
perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a
conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient
and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances
to bring home the guilt of the accused.”
(emphasis applied)


4
2025 INSC 751
5
(2016) 12 SCC 251
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 10 of 14


27. Further this Court in the case of Krishnan alias Ramasamy and Others
6
vs. State of Tamil Nadu while relying on its judgment in Arjun
7
Marik vs. State of Bihar observed as follows:
“21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last
seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of
Bihar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551] this Court
held as follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31)
“31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone
to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had
stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram
is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted
that they were there it would at best amount to be
the evidence of the appellants having been seen last
together with the deceased. But it is settled law that
the only circumstance of last seen will not complete
the chain of circumstances to record the finding that
it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that
basis alone can be founded.””

(emphasis supplied)

8
28. In Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan , this Court held that evidence
on last seen together is a weak evidence and conviction only on the basis of last
seen together without there being any other corroborative evidence against the
accused will not be sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Sections
302 and 201 of the IPC.
29. Another circumstance that the High Court took into consideration against
the appellant was that the present appellant has not offered any explanation
about when he left the company of the deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle and in
absence of such explanation and circumstance, inference would be possible that
the present appellant has committed homicidal death amounting to murder of

6
(2014) 12 SCC 279
7
1994 Supp (2) SCC 372
8
(2014) 4 SCC 715
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 11 of 14


Yuvraj Singh Patle and with a view to conceal the evidence of crime, he burnt his
dead body.
9
30. It is a settled principle that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
clearly provides that when a fact lies especially within the knowledge of a person,
the burden of proving that fact rests upon him. Accordingly, when an accused is
shown to have been last seen in the company of the deceased, it becomes
incumbent upon him to explain how and when they parted ways. The
explanation furnished must be reasonable, probable, and satisfactory in the
opinion of the Court. If such an explanation is offered, the burden cast by
Section 106 of the Evidence Act stands discharged. However, if the accused fails
to present a credible explanation regarding facts within his special knowledge,
this failure constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence
established against him. At the same time, it must be emphasized that Section
106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the primary burden of proof, which in a
criminal trial always remains on the prosecution.
31. Thus, any adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is to
be drawn against the accused person when the prosecution has been able to
establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
10
32. This Court in the case of Sabitri Samantaray vs. State of Odisha
while elaborating on the principle surrounding Section 106 of the Evidence Act
observed that this provision does not dilute or substitute the prosecution’s
fundamental obligation to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

9
For short, ‘the Evidence Act’
10
(2023) 11 SCC 813
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 12 of 14


doubt. Rather, it comes into operation only in situations where the prosecution
has already established a reasonable inference against the accused. This Court
held thus:

held thus:
“37. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides
that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word
“especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally
within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that
applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way
modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to
Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its Illustration
(a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden
of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not
intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed
to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be
impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the

11
(2024) 15 SCC 48
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 13 of 14

D. CONCLUSION
34. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the nature of
circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises a doubt
that he may have committed the offence but the same is not so conclusive that
he can be convicted only on the evidence of the last seen together. Be that as it
may. It is a settled proposition that whenever any doubt emanates in the mind
of the Court, the benefit shall accrue to the accused and not the prosecution.
The present is a case where except for the evidence of last seen together, there
is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the
conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained.
35. Thus, we set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High
Court as well as the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offence under
Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged
against him. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
36. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

………………………………………J.
(SANJAY KAROL)



………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 18, 2025
Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 14 of 14