Last seen theory and recoveries from public places while handcuffed cannot sustain conviction in circumstantial cases.

On March 25, 2016, a heavily injured, half-naked body of an elderly woman (55–60 years) was discovered in a ditch near the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai.

Following an investigation, the Appellants, who resided on a nearby railway platform, were arrested on March 27, 2016.

The prosecution's case rested on "last seen" testimony from PW-3, who claimed to see the Appellants leading the deceased behind a bathroom at midnight, and the subsequent recovery of a blood-stained brick, stone, and clothes.

The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay convicted both Appellants for murder (Section 302) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201) r/w Section 34 of the IPC on January 12, 2018, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The Appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that the circumstantial chain was incomplete.

Whether the "last seen together" theory was established given the time gap between the sighting and the recovery of the body.

Whether the recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was valid, considering the accused were handcuffed and the items were not sealed at the spot.

Whether the prosecution proved the chain of circumstantial evidence leads to the sole hypothesis of the Appellants' guilt.

The Court applied the cardinal principle of circumstantial evidence, requiring a complete chain of facts consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

It relied on Karakattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala and State of U.P. v. Satish regarding the "last seen" theory, which requires the time gap to be so small as to exclude other possibilities.

Regarding recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court applied Laxman Keraba Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Sakharam Raoji Dharap v. State of Maharashtra, holding that disclosures made while handcuffed are presumed involuntary due to duress.

It further cited Hansraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh on the mandatory requirement of sealing recovered articles at the site to ensure trial integrity.

The Court found the "last seen" theory (PW-3) weak because the 8–9 hour gap between the sighting (1:00 AM) and the discovery of the body (9:00 AM) in a public area allowed for third-party intervention.

Regarding Appellant No. 1, the recovery of clothes was vitiated because he was handcuffed during the disclosure, rendering it involuntary, and CA reports for his clothes were "inconclusive".

For Appellant No. 2, the recovery of the stone and clothes was rejected because neither the panch witness (PW-6) nor the Investigating Officer (PW-10) testified that the items were sealed at the spot, creating a gap in the custody chain.

Finally, the Court noted the total absence of motive and the fact that recoveries occurred in areas with unrestricted public access.

The "last seen" theory was too remote, and the forensic recoveries were procedurally flawed and involuntary.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the conviction and life sentences under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the IPC, and ordered the immediate release of the Appellants.