Last seen theory corroborated by CDR data and forensic recovery sustains conviction for murder and criminal conspiracy.

On March 6, 2013, a mutilated, unidentified male body was discovered on the railway tracks near Kareli

Subsequent investigation identified the deceased as Govind Patel through his clothing and slippers

Prosecution witnesses Jeerabai (PW-1) and Seeta (PW-2) testified that Appellants 1 (Bunty) and 2 (Rajju) had taken the deceased from his home on March 4, 2013, after which he never returned

Neema Bai (PW-7) testified that Bunty telephonically confessed to the murder

Investigation revealed prior enmity between Appellant 3 (Kamlesh) and the deceased

The police recovered an iron rod with human blood, mobile phones, and cash from the appellants

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 120-B, and 201/34 of the IPC

The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds of contradictions in testimonies and discrepancies between the medical opinion on the time of death and the "last seen" timeline

1. Whether the "last seen" theory, supported by telephonic confession and circumstantial evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

2. Whether an estimated time of death in a medical opinion can override consistent ocular and circumstantial evidence regarding the timeline of the crime.

3. Whether the prosecution successfully established a criminal conspiracy among the three appellants under Section 120-B of the IPC.

The court primarily applied Section 302 of the IPC (Murder), Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy), and Section 201 (Disappearance of evidence)

It relied on the "last seen theory" as established in Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018), which places the burden of explanation on the accused when seen in the company of the deceased shortly before the crime

Regarding medical evidence, the court applied the principle from State of Haryana v. Bhagirath (1999), holding that medical opinions on the time of death are mere estimates and not conclusive

For criminal conspiracy, the court applied Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. (2017), which held that conspiracy can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused

Admissibility of recoveries followed Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act

The court found that the prosecution successfully established the "last seen" circumstance through the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2

It rejected the appellants’ argument regarding the discrepancy in the time of death, noting that because the body was severely mutilated, Dr. Vinay Thakur’s (PW-9) opinion was merely an estimate and could not override the factual timeline of the deceased being taken by the accused

The court emphasized the importance of the Call Detail Records (CDR) and Customer Application Forms (CAF), which proved telephonic communication among the accused before and after the crime, and specifically corroborated the confession call made to PW-7

Furthermore, the court noted that the appellants failed to provide any explanation for the source of large cash amounts found in their possession or the presence of human blood on the seized iron rod

Consequently, the court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, and the conduct of the accused before and after the incident left no doubt regarding their collective involvement in the conspiracy and murder

The court held that the "last seen" theory, combined with the lack of explanation from the accused and the forensic corroboration of the weapon, was sufficient for conviction

The appeal was dismissed; Appellant No. 3, who was out on bail, was directed to surrender immediately to serve his sentence