Last Seen Theory Cannot Sustain Conviction Where Time Gap is Large and Identification Irreliable

The deceased, Smt. Sangeeta, disappeared on 04.08.2009 after allegedly being seen boarding a motorcycle with the accused.

Her highly decomposed body was recovered from a canal 13 days later on 17.08.2009.

The prosecution charged the accused under Sections 302, 201, 404, and 411 of the IPC based on "last seen together" testimony and the alleged recovery of a necklace and mobile phone.

The trial court acquitted the accused due to material inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the identification of the naked, decomposed body and the delayed reporting of the disappearance.

The State filed this application for leave to appeal against the acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal.

2. Whether the "last seen together" theory could be sustained given the time gap between the disappearance and the discovery of the body.

The Court applied the "five golden principles" (Panchsheel) of circumstantial evidence as established in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

Under Section 378(3) of the CrPC, leave to appeal against acquittal is granted only if the trial court's view is "perverse" or "impossible," as held in Bannareddy v. State of Karnataka and Jayamma v. State of Karnataka.

The "last seen together" doctrine requires the time gap between the sighting and death to be so small as to exclude other perpetrators (Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh).

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act governs the admissibility of recoveries made at the instance of the accused.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet the high threshold for reversing an acquittal.

It observed a significant "time gap" of 13 days between the last sighting and the recovery of the body, breaking the link required for the "last seen together" theory.

The medical evidence from PW-9 indicated the body was so decomposed and "liquefied" that identification by sight or clothing—especially since the body was found undressed—was "highly doubtful" and "misconceived".

The Court noted that the informant (husband) was in Haridwar during the incident and did not lodge a missing person report for nearly two weeks, which contradicted the son’s testimony.

Regarding the recovery of the necklace and mobile, the Court held it was unreliable because these items were not mentioned as missing in the FIR or inquest report, failing the test of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Consequently, the burden of proof under Section 106 did not shift to the accused because the "last seen" foundation was not "credible or cogent".

The High Court held that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace legal proof.

The application for leave to appeal was rejected, and the government appeal was dismissed.