Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of facts excluding every hypothesis of innocence.

The informant (PW-6) and the victim, Gorakh Vishwakarma, worked as carpenters.

It was alleged that on April 3, 2007, the appellants (Shambhu Ram and Sunita Devi) visited the informant’s house and enticed the victim to accompany them to Mumbai for work.

The victim left with Rs. 9,000/- and never returned.

The prosecution alleged the motive was an illicit relationship between the victim and Sunita Devi.

Although the matter was initially reported as a missing person case (Sanha entry) on April 7, 2007, a formal complaint was later filed leading to an FIR under Sections 364, 201, and 120B of the IPC.

On April 13, 2010, the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Danapur, convicted the appellants under Sections 364 and 120B IPC, sentencing them to 10 years and 5 years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

1. Whether the testimonies of interested witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6), who were all close relatives of the victim, could form the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration.

2. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence under the "last seen theory" sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court applied Section 364 (Abduction in order to murder) and Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the evidentiary standards for interested witnesses set forth in Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023), which requires courts to be circumspect and seek corroboration for witnesses who are neither "wholly reliable" nor "wholly unreliable".

Furthermore, the court applied the "five golden principles" of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) and Akhtar Ali v. State of Uttarakhand (2025), necessitating a conclusive and unbroken chain of evidence that excludes any hypothesis of innocence.

The Court determined that the prosecution's case rested entirely on the "last seen" theory, supported only by interested witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6) whose testimonies lacked independent corroboration.

The court observed that while relationship to the victim does not disqualify a witness, their testimony must be clear and cogent; here, the evidence was riddled with gaps.

Critically, the prosecution failed to establish the proximity of time between the "last seen" occurrence and the victim's disappearance.

The investigation was found to be severely flawed: the Investigating Officer’s (PW-7) claim of visiting Mumbai was undocumented, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted for recovered articles (which were shown directly to witnesses), and the victim's body was never recovered.

The court held that the chain of incriminating circumstances was incomplete, and the motive was not proved by cogent evidence.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 13, 2010, and April 16, 2010, were set aside.

The appellants were acquitted of all charges and discharged from their bail bonds.

The court further directed the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Amicus Curiae for her services.