A non-proximate last-seen circumstance cannot shift the Section 106 burden or sustain conviction.

The three appeals arose from the common judgment of conviction dated 27 June 2019 and order of sentence dated 28 June 2019 in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2012, whereby the appellants were convicted under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and three years’ rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence, with the sentences running concurrently.

The prosecution alleged that Md. Javed Ali @ Jahid was called from his home on 27 January 2011 by appellant Samim to play carrom at Khan Marriage Hall, where the other accused were allegedly present.

He thereafter went missing, and a beheaded body was recovered from a septic tank inside the marriage hall on 30 January 2011.

The autopsy established that the death was homicidal and caused by sharp-cutting injuries; however, death was estimated to have occurred 24–36 hours before the post-mortem conducted on 31 January 2011.

The prosecution relied principally on last-seen evidence, recoveries of alleged weapons and a blood-stained lungi, and the appellants’ alleged knowledge of the place of concealment.

The appellants denied the allegations and claimed false implication.

Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen together” circumstance, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the murder.

Whether the time gap between the appellants allegedly being last seen with the deceased and recovery of the body was sufficiently proximate to invoke an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Whether the alleged recoveries of the weapons and blood-stained lungi were admissible and sufficient incriminating circumstances under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Whether the prosecution’s omissions, contradictions, delay in lodging the FIR, and deficiencies in forensic evidence created reasonable doubt requiring acquittal.

The Court applied Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC concerning murder committed with common intention and causing disappearance of evidence.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every incriminating circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the complete chain must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The “last seen together” theory is ordinarily insufficient by itself; it may support conviction only when the interval between the accused and deceased being last seen together and the recovery or death is proximate and other circumstances complete the chain, as recognised in Perumal Raja alias Perumal v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Satpal v. State of Haryana, Ram Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of West Bengal v. Laxmi Kanta Karmakar.

Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden, though an accused’s failure to explain facts within special knowledge may constitute an additional link after the prosecution establishes the foundational circumstances.

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only that portion of information supplied by an accused in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible; the discovery must be proved and must not concern a fact already known to the police.

Medical evidence is expert and advisory, and must be assessed with the other evidence; it may assist the prosecution but cannot be used to disregard material contradictions or gaps in the prosecution case.

The Court held that the alleged last-seen circumstance was not sufficiently reliable or proximate.

The deceased was allegedly seen with the appellants at about 1:00 p.m. on 27 January 2011, but the body was recovered only on 30 January 2011, while the medical evidence placed the death within 24–36 hours before the post-mortem on 31 January 2011.

The missing diary lodged on 29 January did not mention that the deceased had been called by Samim or that any appellant was suspected, whereas those allegations appeared for the first time in the subsequent written complaint.

The oral evidence also contained material inconsistencies regarding who called the deceased and who accompanied him.

Consequently, the time gap did not justify shifting any evidentiary burden under Section 106.

The alleged recoveries did not cure the deficiencies: the relevant portions of the accused persons’ statements leading to recovery were not proved, the autopsy surgeon was not shown the recovered weapons for identification as the weapons used, and the forensic examination failed to establish the origin or blood group of the stains on the weapons and lungi.

The Court further noted the possibility of false implication arising from political rivalry referred to by PW 11.

Viewed cumulatively, the evidence did not establish a complete chain pointing exclusively to the appellants’ guilt.

It held that the last-seen evidence was too remote, Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked against the appellants on the facts, and the alleged recoveries and forensic evidence were insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The convictions under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and the sentences imposed by the Trial Court were set aside, and all appellants were acquitted.

CRA 402 of 2019, CRA 659 of 2019 and CRA 85 of 2021 were allowed; the appellants were directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case, subject to execution of bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC, corresponding to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023, valid for six months.