Rishipal vs. State of Uttarakhand,
Criminal Appeal No. 928 of 2009, Decided on January 8th, 2013
Supreme Court discussed last seen
theory and referred following case laws:
Mohibur Rahman and Anr. v. State
of Assam (2002) 6 SCC 715, the Court held that the circumstance of last seen
does not by itself necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused
who committed the crime. It depends upon the facts of each case. There may
however be cases where, on account of close proximity of place and time between
the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum
of death, a rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion
that either the accused should explain how and in what circumstances the victim
suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide.
Arjun Marik and Ors. V. State of
Bihar 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372, the Court reiterated that the solitary
circumstance of the accused and victim being last seen will not complete the
chain of circumstances for the Court to record a finding that it is consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. No conviction on that
basis alone can, therefore, be founded.
Godabarish Mishra v. Kuntala
Mishra and Another (1996) 11 SCC 264, the Court declared that the theory of
last seen together is not of universal application and may not always be
sufficient to sustain a conviction unless supported by other links in the chain
of circumstances.
Bharat v. State of M.P (2003) 3
SCC 106; two circumstances on the basis whereof the appellant had been
convicted were (i) the appellant having been last seen with the deceased and
(ii) Recovery of ornaments made at his instance. This Court held :
“........Mere
non-explanation cannot lead to the proof of guilt against the appellant. The
prosecution has to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. The chain of circumstances, in our opinion, is not complete so as to
sustain the conviction of the appellant.....”
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran
and Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 755 where this Court held that in the absence of any
other corroborative piece of evidence to complete the chain of circumstances it
is not possible to fasten the guilt on the accused on the solitary circumstance
of the two being seen together.
Bodh Raj alias Bodha and Ors. v.
State of Jammu and Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45 where this Court held :
“The last-seen
theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found
dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being
the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases
to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when
there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists.
In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and
the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a
conclusion of guilt in those cases....”
Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab
(2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court held that it is not possible to convict Appellant
solely on basis of 'last seen' evidence in the absence of any other links in
the chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court gave benefit of doubt to
accused persons.
To see full
text of judgment follow the link: