Conviction based solely on uncorroborated "last seen" evidence and unverified allegations of forged documents is unsustainable.

The informant, Phoolshri (PW-2), alleged that on March 8, 1986, the four accused-appellants lured her brother, Ram Dulare, away from his home

It was further alleged that the accused impersonated another person to execute a fraudulent sale deed of Ram Dulare’s land in favor of appellant Dinesh Singh on March 12, 1986, at Tehsil Aliganj, subsequently causing Ram Dulare’s disappearance

The FIR was lodged on April 6, 1986, after a one-month delay

The Trial Court (Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Etah) convicted the appellants under Sections 364, 420, and 468 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment for kidnapping and varying terms for fraud and forgery

1. Whether the "last seen together" theory, supported by inconsistent witness testimonies and a delayed FIR, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 364 IPC in the absence of corroborative evidence

2. Whether a Criminal Court can determine a registered sale deed to be forged and convict for cheating/forgery under Sections 420 and 468 IPC without a prior finding from a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction

The Court applied the "last seen together" doctrine, noting that this circumstance does not automatically lead to an inference of guilt unless there is a clear nexus between the accused and the crime, as held in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan

It further relied on Ashok v. State of Maharashtra, which establishes that the prosecution must first discharge its initial burden of proof before the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act

Regarding property fraud, the Court applied the principle that the genuineness or forgery of a civil document (sale deed) must be conclusively determined by a Civil Court rather than a Criminal Court acting on mere suspicion

The Court found the prosecution's "last seen" evidence unreliable due to significant contradictions between the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 regarding whether they interacted with the victim

PW-2’s presence at the scene was deemed doubtful as she resided at her matrimonial home and only visited occasionally

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to explain the one-month delay in lodging the FIR, which cast suspicion on the entire narrative

Crucially, the Court held that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the sale deed forged without any supporting decree from a Civil Court

Without independent proof of kidnapping or the illegality of the deed, the mere fact that the victim went voluntarily with the accused (who were known associates) did not satisfy the requirements of Section 364, 420, or 468 IPC

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences dated October 9, 1990. The appellants were acquitted of all charges under Sections 364, 420, and 468 IPC, and their bail bonds were discharged