Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and "last seen" theory affirmed despite lack of forensic blood evidence.

The Appellant, a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) tried as an adult, was convicted for the murder of the deceased on the night of 13.12.2022.

The prosecution case, based on circumstantial evidence, alleged that the Appellant took the deceased from his home on a motorcycle to attend a function; the deceased’s body was found the next morning in a drain with fatal head and throat injuries.

A stone and a knife (retrieved from a drain) were identified as the weapons.

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 302 r/w 120-B and 201 of the IPC.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, citing gaps in the "last seen" theory, delayed witness statements, and the absence of blood on his seized clothes.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction for murder.

2. Whether the "last seen together" theory and subsequent recovery of the weapon were sufficient to displace the presumption of innocence.

The Court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code.

It strictly adhered to the "five golden principles" (Panchsheel) of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), requiring the chain of evidence to be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis of innocence.

It also referenced Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of facts discovered pursuant to a disclosure statement.

The Court found the medical evidence of PW-26 and PW-29 conclusive regarding the homicidal nature of death.

Regarding the "last seen" circumstance, the Court relied on the testimonies of the deceased’s parents (PW-1, PW-10) and brother (PW-9), noting that the Appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for when they parted ways, thereby creating an incriminating link.

The Court upheld the recovery of the knife under Section 27, noting that the consistent testimony of the fishermen (PW-24, PW-53) who retrieved it from the drain outweighed the hostility of other witnesses.

It dismissed the defense regarding the lack of bloodstains on the Appellant’s clothes, observing that sufficient time had passed for the Appellant to change or wash them.

Additionally, the Court noted that the conviction of the co-accused had already been upheld in a separate appeal, reinforcing the consistency of the prosecution’s theory.

It held that the prosecution successfully proved a complete chain of circumstances: homicidal death, "last seen together" status, motive, the recovery of the murder weapon, and corroborative scientific voice-sampling evidence.

The Appellant’s sentence of 14 years rigorous imprisonment for murder and 3 years for destruction of evidence was upheld.