Conviction based on an incomplete circumstantial chain cannot stand where last-seen evidence is hearsay.

The deceased, Chano Sao, and the appellant, Dorik Sao, were engaged in bidi-related work and had travelled together to Tarkeshwar/Chapadanga, West Bengal, on 3 August 1993. When Chano failed to return the following day, his son, Ramdeo Sao, searched for him and found his dead body near Jamunia Jor/Bhadaria forest on 5 August 1993.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and co-accused Dingan Sao murdered Chano because of a dispute concerning bidi work, including an alleged deduction of Rs. 2,000 and the direction to transfer raw material to the deceased. The FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant was subsequently charged under those provisions.

There was no eyewitness to the murder. The prosecution principally relied upon: (i) the alleged “last seen together” circumstance, said to have been communicated by PW-5 Karu Sao to PW-6 Ramdeo Sao; (ii) the alleged bidi-related motive; and (iii) PW-1’s testimony that the appellant had bloodstains on his clothes after the occurrence.

The original Investigating Officer was not examined, although PW-7, a subsequent investigating officer, and PW-8, a formal witness concerning the case diary, were examined. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Whether the prosecution established a complete and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence proving that the appellant murdered Chano Sao beyond reasonable doubt?

Whether the alleged “last seen together” circumstance was proved through reliable and admissible evidence?

Whether the testimony of PW-6, a son of the deceased, reliably established the alleged motive and the appellant’s involvement in the crime without independent corroboration?

Whether the non-examination of the original Investigating Officer and the failure to examine the bidi-company owner caused prejudice to the defence and weakened the prosecution case?

Whether PW-1’s evidence regarding bloodstains on the appellant’s clothes constituted sufficient corroborative evidence connecting the appellant with the murder?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning murder and criminal conspiracy, respectively.

Since the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Court applied the principles in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, requiring every circumstance to be fully established and the chain of evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

The Court applied the five-fold test in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, namely that the circumstances must be fully proved, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, exclusive of other hypotheses, and form a complete chain.

The Court held, relying on Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Munu Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh, that a conviction cannot rest solely on an uncorroborated or unreliable “last seen” circumstance.

The Court further relied on State of Rajasthan v. Kalki for distinguishing material discrepancies from normal discrepancies, Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh on the importance of motive in circumstantial cases, and Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which requires that where two reasonable views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted and the accused must receive the benefit of reasonable doubt.

The Court also reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof.

The Court held that the “last seen together” circumstance was not proved because PW-6’s assertion that PW-5 had seen the deceased with the appellant at Narganzo station was unsupported by PW-5’s own testimony, which referred only to village rumours and did not claim personal observation.

Even if proved, last-seen evidence alone could not sustain the conviction without corroboration.

PW-6 was the deceased’s son and his evidence regarding motive, the appellant’s alleged statements, and the appellant’s involvement was uncorroborated by any independent witness; therefore, it required cautious scrutiny and could not complete the evidentiary chain.

The alleged bidi-related motive was also inadequately established because the owner or “master” of the bidi business was neither examined nor otherwise independently connected with the alleged dispute.

The Court further found a material inconsistency in PW-2’s account regarding when he first received information about the dead body and reached the spot, which affected the reliability of his testimony on the discovery of the body.

The non-examination of the original Investigating Officer deprived the defence of an opportunity to confront him regarding contradictions, the investigation into motive, and the inquest and seizure proceedings, causing demonstrable prejudice.

Finally, PW-1’s evidence about bloodstains on the appellant’s clothes was only a visual assertion by a lay witness; the clothes were not seized and no forensic or serological evidence connected the stains to the deceased.

Consequently, the circumstances, considered cumulatively, were suggestive at most and did not form a complete chain pointing exclusively to the appellant’s guilt.

The alleged last-seen evidence was hearsay and uncorroborated; the motive and related-witness testimony were insufficient; the investigation suffered from material omissions; and the bloodstain evidence lacked forensic support.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentence dated 9–10 February 2004 were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of reasonable doubt.

As the appellant was on bail, his bail bonds were cancelled and the sureties discharged.

The Court also directed the High Court Legal Services Authority to pay Rs. 10,000 to the learned Amicus Curiae.