Conviction based solely on last-seen theory unsustainable absent proof of homicidal death and completing circumstantial chain.

The Appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, for the murder of Sanjay Jaiswal under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC

The deceased went missing on 21.05.2014; a highly decomposed body was recovered from a vacant "Indira Awas" room on 27.05.2014

The prosecution's case rested on: (a) a "last seen" theory—witnesses saw the deceased on the Appellant's motorcycle on 21.05.2014

(b) a memorandum statement leading to the seizure of a motorcycle and clothes

and (c) alleged motive regarding financial disputes following the deceased's marriage

The Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing a break in the chain of circumstantial evidence

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature in light of the medical evidence?

Whether the circumstance of "last seen together" is sufficient to sustain a conviction when there is a significant time gap and an absence of corroborative evidence?

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC

It relied on the "last seen theory" jurisprudence established in *Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar*

and *Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan*, which mandate that "last seen" alone cannot form the sole basis of conviction without a complete chain of circumstances.

It further applied the proximity rule from *State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran*, requiring the time gap between the last seen event and death to be so small as to rule out third-party intervention

The Court observed that the medical testimony of PW-11 and the post-mortem report (Ex.P-14) failed to ascertain the cause or mode of death due to advanced putrefaction, meaning homicidal death was not proved

Regarding the "last seen" circumstance, the Court noted a six-day gap between the deceased being seen with the Appellant (21.05.2014) and the recovery of the body (27.05.2014), which failed the proximity test

The Court found the identification of the decomposed body—based only on clothes—unreliable without DNA profiling

Furthermore, the seized articles (motorcycle, clothes) were common items with no forensic link to the crime

The Court held that the trial court erred by treating "last seen" as a sufficient substitute for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence

It held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof, and the prosecution failed to establish a homicidal death or a conclusive link between the Appellant and the crime

The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment dated 11.08.2015, acquitted the Appellant of charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and ordered the continuation of bail bonds for six months per Section 481 of the BNSS