Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Sunita, who was convicted for the murder of Sushila. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, primarily the last seen theory. The prosecution alleged that Sunita was last seen with the deceased and her two children on January 3, 2004, and that the deceased's body was found burning in a Bitora the next morning. The key witnesses were Neeraj (PW-4), stepson of Sunita, and Pirthi Singh (PW-5), father of Baburam with whom Sunita lived. The Court found the evidence of these witnesses unreliable due to contradictions: PW-4 described the deceased as 5'7" tall while her father said she was 5' tall; PW-4 did not identify the deceased; and it was improbable to carry a dead body on a Scooty. The Court held that the last seen theory is weak evidence and requires corroboration to form a complete chain of circumstances. Since the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain excluding all hypotheses of innocence, the conviction was unsustainable. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Sunita.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The evidence of last seen is a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. When coupled with other circumstances such as close proximity of time between last seen and recovery of corpse, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106. If the accused offers no explanation or a wrong one, and there is corroborative evidence forming a complete chain, conviction can be based. However, if there is any doubt or break in the chain, benefit of doubt must go to the accused (Paras 10-11). B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Tests for Conviction - The circumstances from which inference of guilt is drawn must be cogently and firmly established; they should unerringly point towards guilt; taken cumulatively, they must form a complete chain excluding any hypothesis of innocence; and the evidence must be inconsistent with innocence (Para 11). C) Criminal Law - Murder - Conviction Set Aside - The prosecution case rested on last seen evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, which was found unreliable due to contradictions and improbabilities. The height discrepancy, failure to identify the deceased, and impossibility of carrying a dead body on a Scooty created doubt. No other corroborative evidence linked the appellant to the crime. Held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and the appellant was entitled to acquittal (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory, is sustainable when the chain of circumstances is incomplete and inconsistent with guilt.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant Sunita of all charges.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- Section 106 Evidence Act
- 1872
- chain of circumstances
- benefit of doubt
