Failure to examine Investigating Officer and establish proximity in 'last seen' theory vitiates conviction in circumstantial cases.

On the night of May 18/19, 2010, the police found an unidentified body (later identified as Karu Gope) with a gunshot wound in front of Sharda Gas Agency

An FIR was registered against unknown persons. The prosecution eventually charged four appellants based on the testimony of the deceased’s relatives and a purported eyewitness, claiming the appellants took the deceased from his house under the pretext of playing games

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act based on the "last seen together" theory

1. Whether the prosecution established the "last seen together" theory and the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the informant caused material prejudice to the defence

3. Whether the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 34 IPC is legally sustainable

The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act regarding the use of weapons

It heavily relied on the "five golden principles" (Panchsheel) of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which requires a complete chain of evidence excluding any hypothesis of innocence

The court also applied legal principles regarding the "last seen together" doctrine, requiring a close proximity in time between the victim being seen with the accused and the death

P.W. 2 (mother) gave contradictory accounts, claiming to see the assailants fleeing in her examination-in-chief but admitting in cross-examination she stayed home and only heard about the murder the next morning

The court noted a significant time gap between the deceased leaving his home and the discovery of the body at 12:45 A.M., breaking the "last seen" proximity

Crucially, the non-examination of the I.O. was deemed fatal as it prevented the defense from verifying contradictions in witness statements and left unexplained why only one bullet injury was found despite claims of multiple shooters

Furthermore, the court held that Section 27 of the Arms Act is an individual liability for using a weapon and cannot be applied vicariously through Section 34 IPC

The Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated May 15, 2019, and the order of sentence dated May 21, 2019. The four appellants (Anjay Kumar, Md. Gulab, Babloo Kumar, and Alok Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar) were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith