Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and the Trial Court.
The Supreme Court acquitted a man accused of murder while reiterating that a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of being last seen together. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and the Trial Court, thereby acquitting the Appellant of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Appeal challenged the Order of the Orissa High Court, which had affirmed the Appellant's conviction.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra remarked, “Therefore, this fact about motive is narrated by him for the first time in court hence the same cannot be relied upon. Interestingly, PW-3 father of the deceased has not stated anything about the motive in his examination-in-chief...However, the crucial question is whether the evidence of last seen together is sufficient enough to convict the appellant.”
Brief Facts The prosecution alleged that the Appellant and the deceased had gone to watch a football match, after which, the informant, received information that his son had died in a road accident. A written report was lodged stating that the deceased had fallen from a motorcycle and died. However, the post-mortem report indicated death due to "asphyxia due to throttling". Further investigation revealed that the Appellant was seen with the deceased, leading to a suspicion that the Appellant had committed murder.
The Appellant was arrested and allegedly confessed to the murder during interrogation, stating he had concealed the body in a jungle. The body was recovered based on his confession.
Court’s Reasoning The Supreme Court remarked, “The present is a case where except for the evidence of ‘last seen together’ there is no other incriminating material against the appellant.” The Court referred to its judgment in Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2016), wherein it was held, “It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together.” Similarly, the Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014) had held that “evidence on ‘last seen together’ is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of ‘last seen together’ without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC.”
The Bench held, “On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises doubt that he may have committed murder but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the basis of evidence on ‘last seen together’.” Consequently, the Court ordered, “In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and the Trial Court and acquit the appellant for the charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appellant be set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Padman Bibhar v. State Of Odisha (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 751)
Appearance: Appellant: Advocate Shyam Manohar; AOR Manju Jetley Respondent: AOR Shovan Mishra
