Last Seen Theory Must Be Examined From The POV Of Doctor’s Evidence Who Performs Postmortem: Gauhati HC Sets Aside Conviction U/s. 302 IPC
The Gauhati High Court set aside a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC while observing that the ‘last seen theory’ must be examined from the point of view of the evidence of the Doctor who had performed the postmortem as well as the report.
The Court acquitted the Appellant who was sentenced to life imprisonment under Murder charges by the Trial Court. The Bench reiterated that the guilt of an accused cannot be presumed but has to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Mitali Thakuria observed, “ From the above evidence and discussions, it is found that the “last seen theory” though tried to be projected is wholly inconsistent. The same has also to be examined from the point of view of the evidence of the Doctor who had performed the postmortem as well as the report itself.”
Amicus Curiae M. Dutta represented the Appellant, while Addl. PP A. Begum appeared for the Respondent.
An FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased (victim) alleging that the victim was found dead near a temple. The FIR did not name any accused. The investigation led to the arrest of the Appellant, and charges were framed under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses during the trial.
The conviction by the Trial Court was based on the ‘last seen together’ theory and an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant.
Even though the prosecution alleged that the Appellant confessed to killing the victim, the High Court noted that the absence of any corroborative evidence or details of the circumstances under which the confession was made was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“By following the aforesaid principles, we are of the considered opinion that the aspect of “last seen theory” cannot be made applicable in the instant case and in any case cannot be independently sufficient to sustain the conviction. On the other aspect of extra-judicial confession as has been held, the same is a weak piece of evidence and without there being other supporting materials trustworthy of credence, the same cannot be the basis of a conviction,” the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “We accordingly hold that the impugned judgment dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-2 (FTC), Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 52(T)/18 is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. We hold that the appellant is entitled for getting the benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted and be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case.”
Cause Title: Kumru Bhumij v. The State Of Assam
