Last seen theory cannot sustain conviction when medical evidence suggests a significant time-gap and accidental death.

On May 24, 2004, the two appellants allegedly took the deceased, Mohinder, from his home on a motorcycle

The following morning, his body was discovered in a field with head injuries and signs of being dragged

A damaged Yamaha motorcycle and the deceased's chappals were found nearby

The prosecution alleged the motive was suspicion that the deceased was a police informant regarding the appellants' contraband trade

The Trial Court and High Court convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC, primarily based on the "last seen" theory and the appellants' failure to explain when they parted company with the deceased

1. Whether the "last seen" circumstance was sufficiently established to sustain a conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence

2. Whether the medical evidence and recovery of the damaged motorcycle supported the hypothesis of a homicidal death versus a vehicular accident

3. Whether the prosecution successfully established the motive and linked the recovered items (motorcycles) to the accused

The Court applied the five-fold "Panchsheel" principles of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring a complete chain of evidence excluding every hypothesis except guilt

It interpreted Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting that the burden of proof shifts to the accused only after the prosecution establishes a prima facie case

The Court further referenced Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence regarding the nature of injuries sustained by motorcyclists and the variables affecting the estimation of time of death via stomach contents

The Court found the prosecution's chain of evidence incomplete. First, the medical evidence (empty stomach and lack of fecal matter) suggested death occurred in the wee hours of the morning, creating a significant time gap from when the deceased was "last seen" at 8:00 PM, thereby allowing for third-party intervention

Second, the Court noted that the injuries were consistent with a motorcycle accident, an inference bolstered by the discovery of a damaged motorcycle and human blood at a secondary spot

The Court criticized the "last seen" testimony of PW1 and PW4 as a likely post-discovery contrivance, noting they failed to mention the motorcycle's color in initial statements and that the FIR's description of "drag marks" appeared coached since no such marks were in the police site plans

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove Ranjeet Singh’s ownership of the motorcycle or any direct link between the deceased’s role as an informant and the appellants

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, flowingly acquitting the appellants of all charges. The Court ordered their immediate release and discharged their bail bonds