Extra-Judicial Confession and "Last Seen" Theory Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroborating Evidence Chain

The State appealed the acquittal of the respondent (Jagdish Hirabhai Malam) for the murder of 10-year-old Bharat, son of Arjanbhai. The prosecution alleged that on 21.11.1996, the accused took Bharat on a bicycle to the Kankai temple area and killed him with a stone due to a land dispute between their families

The body was discovered the next morning on the riverbank

The prosecution case rested on the "last seen together" theory and extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the accused to neutral villagers two days later

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on 01.01.2000, leading to this State appeal

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence under the "last seen together" theory to displace the presumption of innocence

2. Whether the extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the accused were voluntary, truthful, and inspiring of confidence

3. Whether the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, found patent perversity or misreading of evidence in the Trial Court's judgment

The court applied Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence

It followed the "last seen together" doctrine from Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh, noting that this circumstance alone is insufficient unless the time gap is so small it excludes all others

Regarding extra-judicial confessions, it applied the principles from Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Pawan Kumar Chaurasia v. State of Bihar, which categorize such confessions as "weak evidence" requiring rigorous tests of voluntariness and credibility, especially regarding the relationship between the accused and the witness

The Court found the "last seen together" testimony of PW3 and PW4 unreliable due to unnatural conduct; despite knowing the child was missing or dead, they failed to disclose seeing him with the accused until days later

PW3 attended the cremation but remained silent for 90 minutes, which the Court deemed inconsistent with normal human behavior

Regarding the extra-judicial confessions (PW5, PW6, PW7), the Court noted the accused had no relationship of trust or intimacy with these witnesses, making a voluntary confession of three murders (including his grandparents) to near-strangers highly improbable

The Court observed that the witnesses did not take the accused to the police immediately after the alleged confession, further weakening the claim

The medical evidence also contradicted the confession; while the confession mentioned strangulation, PW1 (doctor) testified there were no signs of strangulation or lung congestion

The Court affirmed that the Trial Court’s view was a "plausible and reasonable view" and lacked perversity. The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal of the respondent for the charge under Section 302 of the IPC was confirmed, and the bail bond was cancelled