Last seen theory alone is insufficient for conviction absent a complete chain of corroborative circumstantial evidence.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the IPC for the alleged murder of a victim (a sex worker) by manual strangulation.

The prosecution case rested on the testimony of P.W.2, who claimed that at midnight, she bolted the victim's door from the outside at the victim's request after the appellant entered.

The next morning, P.W.2 found the victim dead and the window rods broken, suggesting the appellant fled through the window.

The prosecution examined four witnesses; however, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) was not examined, nor were any material items like the broken window rods or fingerprints seized or forensically analyzed.

The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court at Calcutta.

1. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the failure to seize material evidence like broken window rods or fingerprints is fatal to the prosecution's case.

2. Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the "last seen together" theory and the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.

The court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code regarding murder.

The Chain of circumstances must be complete to sustain a conviction.

The court relied on the principle that the "last seen together" theory is a "weak piece of evidence" and cannot be the sole basis for conviction, citing Padman Bibhar Vs State of Odhisa [2025 INSC 751] and Rambraksh @ Jalim Vs State of Chhattisgarh [(2016) 2 S.C.R. 599].

Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof.

The Court found the prosecution's chain of circumstances far from complete.

It criticized the Trial Court's view that the non-examination of the I.O. was not fatal, noting that this omission led to a lack of an arrest memo, no TI Parade, and the inability to prove the seizure list.

The Court found P.W.2’s testimony lacked credibility, describing the act of bolting a door from the outside at the victim's request as "not normal human conduct".

P.W.2 admitted she did not mention the appellant's name to the police and only identified him 14 months later in court.

Since there were no fingerprints, no eyewitnesses, and no independent corroboration, the Court held that the "last seen theory" was insufficient to bridge the gap between suspicion and proof.

The High Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. It ordered the immediate release of the appellant, Md. Salim @ Chikna, from Dum Dum Correctional Home, provided he is not required in any other case.