Last Seen Theory Is Weak Evidence Unless Time Gap With Death Is Negligible: Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction

The Court was hearing appeals by two men convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence, including the allegation that they had taken the deceased from home on a motorcycle the previous evening and that his body was found the next morning. The Trial Court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeals. The Bench observed:

“The circumstance of the deceased being last seen together with the accused is a weak circumstance and on its own is ordinarily not sufficient to record conviction until and unless there is negligible time gap between the two events i.e., the deceased being seen together with the accused and discovery of the dead body of the deceased, which rules out any third party intervention in the crime.”

Advocate Satyendra Kumar appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Samar Vijay Singh appeared for the State.

Background

The prosecution's case was that the deceased was taken from his home in the evening by the accused on a motorcycle and did not return. His body was found the next morning in a field, with injuries to the head and signs that the body had allegedly been dragged.

The prosecution relied on several circumstances: last seen together, recovery of a damaged motorcycle and slippers from another field, disclosure statements allegedly leading to reconstruction of the crime scene, recovery of another motorcycle, and motive arising from suspicion that the deceased had been giving information to police about illicit activities.

The Trial Court held the circumstances sufficient to convict the accused for murder, though it acquitted them of the charge under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court dismissed their appeal.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reiterated that last-seen evidence is not conclusive unless the proximity between the accused and deceased being seen together and the death is extremely close.

The Court observed: “In cases where there is a large time gap between the two events, intervening circumstances such as involvement of some third party in the crime cannot be ruled out, and therefore, this circumstance on its own would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

The Bench clarified that the circumstance becomes relevant only when supported by other proved circumstances forming a complete chain.

The Court stated: “However, the said circumstance becomes relevant when coupled with other circumstances it constitutes a chain so complete that it leads to an inference that in all human probability it is the accused and no one else who had committed the crime.”

The Court found that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case with the certainty required in a circumstantial evidence case. The injuries could possibly have resulted from a motorcycle accident, and the medical evidence also left room for a later time of death.

The Bench noted: “However, there are two more circumstances here, which may indicate that the death could have occurred in the wee hours of the morning of 25.5.2004. First is the large intestine not showing presence of faecal matter, and the second is the doctor’s opinion that the time of death could be between 2 to 24 hours before autopsy.”

It added that though the precise time of death could not be fixed merely from absence of faecal matter, it could still create doubt when read with other circumstances.

The Court also found gaps in the prosecution version about the condition and location of the body. Although the FIR mentioned signs of dragging, the site plans did not show drag marks.

The Court observed: “The absence of drag marks in the site plan, yet a mention in the FIR regarding presence of signs that the body was dragged, when, ordinarily, an expert only could tell about it upon examining the body, gives an impression that its disclosure in the FIR is a result of consultation with the police.”

The Bench also noted uncertainty over who informed the police about the damaged motorcycle and when it was found.

The Supreme Court considered the fact that human blood was found near the damaged motorcycle, the motorcycle was lying damaged in a field, the fatal injuries were on the head, and such injuries were possible in a motorcycle accident.

The Court stated: “What strikes us is that, admittedly, at the spot where the motorcycle was found there was human blood. The nature of injuries was such that the person would have died instantaneously on the spot. Further, admittedly, the motorcycle was found lying damaged in the field. The fatal injuries were only on the head, and possible in a motorcycle accident, as discussed above.”

The Bench held that these circumstances created serious doubt about the prosecution case and made the last-seen theory unsafe.

The Court held: “In that backdrop, when we consider the medical evidence giving rise to the possibility of death occurring in the wee hours of the morning, the evidence of ‘last seen’ circumstance, in our view, fails to inspire confidence. We thus hold that the last seen circumstance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court also rejected the evidentiary value of the alleged disclosure statements, noting that the crime scene was already known and no murder weapon or blood-stained clothes were recovered.

The Court observed: “In so far as discovery of the crime scene is concerned, the same was already a discovered fact, and therefore, the disclosure has no evidentiary value. Admittedly, they could neither recover the murder weapon nor blood-stained clothes etc. to link the accused to the crime.”

On motive, the Court held that there was no material to show that the deceased was an informant or witness in any case against the accused. The Bench found that the prosecution had failed to prove motive as well.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and that the circumstances did not form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.

The Court held: “In light of the discussion above, we find, firstly, the prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and, secondly, those circumstances cumulatively do not indicate that in all human probability it is the accused who had committed the crime and no one else. Besides, the circumstances proven on record do strongly indicate that the deceased died in a motorcycle accident.”

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court, acquitted the appellants of all charges, and discharged their bail bonds.

Cause Title: Didar Singh @ Dari v. The State of Haryana with Ranjeet Singh @ Jeeta v. The State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 726)

Appearances

Appellants: Satyendra Kumar, Harikesh Singh, Sandeep Sinhmar, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Pallavi Daem and Gunjan Kumari

Respondent: Samar Vijay Singh, Vishal Khattar, Sabarni Som, Aman Dev Sharma and Gaj Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment