A last-seen circumstance alone cannot sustain conviction without a complete chain excluding innocence.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Jamui, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of her young grandson and concealment of the offence.

The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, principally that witnesses had seen the appellant with the child before his death and that she had blood on her saree.

The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), contending that the circumstances did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that material circumstances had not been put to her in her examination under Section 313 CrPC.

The High Court reviewed the witness testimony, the investigation and the trial court’s findings.

Whether the prosecution proved a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence establishing the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the failure to put the material incriminating circumstances to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC prejudiced her and affected the use of that evidence against her.

Whether the testimony of the child witness and the investigation’s failure to seize the alleged blood-stained saree or the stone supported the conviction.

Under the circumstantial-evidence test in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the circumstances relied upon must be fully established, conclusive, consistent only with guilt, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and form a complete chain.

The Court also relied on Rambraksh alias Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh for the principle that a conviction cannot rest merely on the accused having been last seen with the deceased.

Section 313 CrPC requires the trial court to put each material incriminating circumstance specifically to the accused so that she can explain it; omission may vitiate the trial where it causes prejudice, as discussed in Suresh Sahu v. State of Bihar and the authorities quoted there.

A child witness’s evidence requires careful scrutiny, and the judge should first assess the child’s capacity to understand questions and give rational answers, as stated in Pradeep v. State of Haryana.

The charges were under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

The Court found material inconsistencies in the last-seen accounts, including differences about when and how witnesses saw the appellant with the child; the informant’s account also did not reliably align with the testimony of the alleged witnesses.

The alleged blood-stained saree was not seized, and the stone said to have been found on the child’s body was not recovered; the investigating officer also reported no evidence of violence at the scene.

The child witness was not examined preliminarily to establish her competence, and her claim to have witnessed the killing was unsupported by the prosecution’s case and surrounding circumstances.

Further, the appellant was not asked specific questions about the material circumstances relied on by the prosecution, depriving her of a fair opportunity to explain them.

Taken together, these defects meant that the circumstances did not form a complete chain excluding reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.

It set aside the conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, acquitted the appellant, discharged her from her bail bonds, and allowed the appeal.