Last-seen evidence alone cannot sustain conviction without a complete, conclusive circumstantial chain.

The appellant challenged the judgment dated 29 October 2024 by which the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Masaurhi acquitted the respondents of offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) in connection with the murder of the appellant’s father, Madan Mohan Singh.

The prosecution alleged that on 22 July 2018 at approximately 8:30 p.m., respondent Mumtaz Miyan @ Teni Miyan, the deceased’s former servant, came to the deceased’s house and took him away.

The deceased did not return, and his body was discovered the following morning in an orchard with multiple head injuries.

The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including family members of the deceased, three investigating officers, and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination.

The defence adduced no evidence.

The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution had failed to establish motive, the last-seen circumstance, or any reliable connecting evidence; no weapon or other incriminating article had been recovered.

Whether the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, particularly the “last seen” circumstance, sufficient to prove the respondents’ guilt for murder under Sections 302/34 IPC and criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC?

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference?

The Court applied Sections 302/34 and 120-B IPC, concerning murder committed with common intention and criminal conspiracy.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every incriminating circumstance must be firmly established, must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and must form a complete chain leading to the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused.

This principle was drawn from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, as reiterated in Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam.

The “last seen” circumstance, by itself, does not necessarily establish guilt; there must be additional evidence connecting the accused with the crime, and conviction cannot rest merely on suspicion or the accused’s failure to explain the circumstances, as held in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court’s view is manifestly erroneous or perverse.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish even the foundational last-seen circumstance with reliable evidence.

The family witnesses gave inconsistent accounts regarding when they learned of the deceased’s death and the distance between the house, dalan, and orchard.

The wife did not state that she had seen Teni Miyan take the deceased away, while the sons who allegedly supported that version were not present at the relevant time.

The witnesses also acknowledged the cordial relationship between Teni Miyan and the deceased, weakening the alleged motive.

The prosecution further failed to establish the alleged land dispute through documentary or other reliable evidence.

No weapon was recovered, no forensic material was sent for examination, and the investigating officers did not obtain the relevant mobile-phone call records or tower location.

The investigation also did not adequately examine the place of occurrence or the orchard owner.

Although the post-mortem established death from head injuries, it did not connect any respondent to the offence.

Consequently, the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.

The trial court’s appreciation of evidence was therefore neither perverse nor legally unsustainable.

It held that the prosecution had not proved the respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, and that the “last seen” theory alone could not sustain conviction.

Finding no perversity or material error in the trial court’s acquittal, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 29 October 2024.

A copy of the judgment and the trial court record was directed to be transmitted to the trial court.