Last seen theory is insufficient for conviction without independent corroboration completing the chain of circumstances.

The State appealed an acquittal dated November 10, 2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, involving charges under Sections 365, 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC

The Complainant (PW-5) alleged that on February 2, 2011, the respondents forcibly abducted her husband in a car following a dispute over a Rs. 5,000 debt

Eight days later, a body was recovered and identified by the Complainant and her sister-in-law

The prosecution relied on the "last seen" theory and recoveries of alleged murder weapons (a thapi) and ligatures

However, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents, citing a lack of independent witnesses, missing PCR records, and suspicious recovery procedures

1. Whether the "last seen" circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration

2. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or unsustainable, warranting interference by the appellate court

The Court applied the "last seen" doctrine, which holds that while a presumption may arise if an accused is last seen with the deceased, the prosecution must still establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt

It cited Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), noting that "last seen" evidence is inherently weak and insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence

For the standard of appellate review in acquittals, the Court relied on Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandates that if the Trial Court’s view is legally plausible, it should not be reversed even if a contrary view is possible

The Court found the "last seen" theory "nebulous" due to several prosecution failures: the absence of PCR call records, the non-examination of police officials who initially visited the site, and the failure to examine the deceased’s sister (Jyoti), a crucial witness to the identification

The Court highlighted that the time gap of eight days between the abduction and the recovery of the body weakened the "last seen" link

Furthermore, the Court agreed with the Trial Court that the recovery of materials appeared "planted" given the significant time gap

Connecting these facts to the Mallappa principles, the High Court determined that the Trial Court had taken a "plausible view" based on material inconsistencies and a lack of independent family or public witnesses to support PW-5

It affirmed that circumstantial evidence of "last seen together" cannot form the sole basis for conviction without a complete, corroborative chain of events

The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court's findings

The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld