SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES CONDITIONAL ALLOTMENT UNDER STATUTORY SCHEME IS NOT A SALE

The Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted under Section 302 IPC, holding that the “last seen together” theory, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient for conviction. The Bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sanjay Karol, in the matter of Padman Bibhar Vs State of Orissa (2025 INSC 751) (SLP (Criminal) No. 17440 of 2024) (Date of Judgement- 21.05.2025) found critical gaps in the prosecution’s case, including an unclear time gap between the last sighting and death. Citing the absence of a complete chain of circumstances, the Court overturned the conviction, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence alone must be compelling and conclusive to sustain a guilty verdict.

 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Prosecution claimed that the Appellant and the deceased were last seen together on 4th April 2016 near a riverbank, after which the deceased’s body was found in the river the next day. Based solely on this “last seen” theory, the appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by the Trial Court, a decision later affirmed by the High Court. Thereafter the matter arrived before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

 

KEY LEGAL ISSUES

1. Can a conviction under Section 302 IPC be sustained solely on the basis of “last seen together” evidence?
2. What is the probative value of circumstantial evidence in the absence of motive and conclusive forensic links?

• Do procedural lapses such as delayed FIRs and inconsistencies in witness testimony fatally impair the prosecution’s case?

 

JUDICIAL ANALYSIS

1. Fragility of the “Last Seen” Theory

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the “last seen” theory constitutes a weak form of circumstantial evidence. It gains strength only if the time gap between the person last seen and the time of death is so short that no other hypothesis except guilt is possible. In this case, several inconsistencies emerged: Multiple witnesses stated that the appellant helped search for the deceased the following day, which contradicted the prosecution’s narrative of his guilt and suspicious conduct. There was no certainty about the timeline of death, making it impossible to definitively link the appellant to the death based merely on their last presence together.

 

1. Absence of Motive and Procedural Irregularities

No credible motive was established. A Prosecution Witness (PW-13) introduced a theory of jealousy for the first time during the trial, alleging the Appellant suspected an affair between the deceased and his wife. However, this was absent from his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., making it inadmissible and unreliable.

Moreover, the FIR was registered after significant delay. The dead body was found before the FIR, but no immediate action was taken to connect the Appellant to the crime through proper procedures such as a Section 27 Evidence Act disclosure or forensic corroboration.

 

1. Forensic Gaps and Lack of Direct Recovery

The Prosecution recovered a blood-stained stone from near the river, not at the Appellant’s instance. The chemical analysis confirmed human blood but failed to establish any link with the deceased. The Court held that the mere discovery of the stone near the body, without a recovery memo or supporting witness testimony, could not be considered incriminating evidence

 

LEGAL PRECEDENTS CONSIDERED

The judgment draws heavily on established jurisprudence:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984): Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
• Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2019) and Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016): Cautioned against sole reliance on “last seen” evidence unless supported by motive, forensic, or recovery evidence.

 

These rulings reinforce that suspicion, no matter how grave, cannot substitute proof.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s acquittal in this case is a reminder of the high standards required in criminal adjudication. A person cannot be convicted merely because they were last seen with the deceased, especially when forensic links, motive, and reliable recovery are absent. The judiciary must guard against miscarriages of justice that may arise from speculative inferences and procedural shortcuts.

 

The Judgment emphasizes the need for rigorous investigation, strict adherence to procedural safeguards, and judicial caution in evaluating circumstantial evidence. It underscores that convictions cannot rest solely on speculative links such as the “last seen together” theory, especially when the chain of evidence is incomplete or inconsistent.

 

The Apex Court aptly observed, “suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof.” This case serves as a cautionary reminder of the dangers of placing excessive reliance on weak circumstantial evidence and reinforces the judiciary’s duty to remain ever vigilant in safeguarding the rights of the accused.

 

SARTHAK KALRA

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled “Senior Citizens: Legal Rights & Support Systems Explained” can be viewed at the link below:

 

https://youtu.be/gWns2AXAAP8?si=jJubUQoDl56cDQV1