Last-seen evidence alone, without corroboration, cannot sustain a murder conviction.

The appellants challenged their convictions under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of the deceased, who was the informant’s daughter.

The prosecution alleged that appellant No. 1 had a relationship with the deceased and took her from her home on the night before her body was found; appellant No. 2 was alleged to have threatened her after branding her a witch.

The post-mortem attributed death to asphyxia caused by closure of the nostrils and mouth.

The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, including testimony about the deceased being last seen with appellant No. 1 and allegations concerning appellant No. 2.

The trial court convicted both appellants and imposed sentences including life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence established appellant No. 2’s involvement in the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the evidence that appellant No. 1 was last seen with the deceased, without sufficient corroboration, established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court considered the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, concerning murder and causing disappearance of evidence in furtherance of common intention.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the last-seen circumstance, standing alone and without adequate corroboration in the circumstances of the case, was insufficient to sustain conviction.

The judgment cited no precedent.

As to appellant No. 2, the evidence that he had called the deceased a witch and threatened her was unsupported by material establishing his participation in the crime; the Court also noted that the informant did not say he had accompanied appellant No. 1 to take the deceased.

As to appellant No. 1, the informant’s account that he took the deceased from the house was not sufficiently corroborated. P.W.-3’s claim to have seen them together was materially contradicted by the investigating officer, while the evidence that appellant No. 1’s engagement ceremony was taking place that day added to the doubt.

The Court therefore held that the last-seen circumstance alone did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted both appellants, and directed their release from custody unless required in another case.