Corroborative Evidence Required To Substantiate Convictions Based On Last Seen Theory: Chhattisgarh High Court Reverses Rape-Murder Conviction

The Chhattisgarh High Court has reiterated that the conviction of an accused cannot be recorded solely on the basis that he was last seen with the deceased and while basing the conviction on the last seen theory, it is safer for the Court to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution.A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, further held,“…conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together and normally the Court is required to look for some other corroborative piece of evidence. Most importantly, the theory of last seen comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than accused being the perpetrator of crime, becomes impossible.”FactsThe ruling stemmed from an appeal filed against a conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (“trial Court”), convicting the appellant (accused) under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of IPC. The accused was punished with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- on account of conviction under Section 302 and with rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs.500/- on account of conviction under Section 376 and 201 of IPC each.During the investigation, it was alleged that the appellant, with bad intention, had committed sexual intercourse with the deceased and upon objection by the deceased, he pressed her nose and mouth with the bed sheet and caused her death. It was also alleged that the accused took Rs.1650/- from the purse of the deceased and spent it on food and drink and broke her mobile and SIM and threw it alongwith the battery in the courtyard of one Laxminath.The trial Court had found the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him and consequently convicted him. Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused preferred an appeal to the High Court.The accused, in his appeal, contended that there was no direct evidence against him and that there were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence of the crime. The conviction of the accused was based on circumstantial evidence and none of the circumstances from which the inference of guilt could be drawn had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, evidence of witnesses to last seen (PW3, PW7 and PW9) were not reliable as none of these witnesses had seen the accused and the deceased together.Supporting the conviction, the respondents argued that the trial Court had correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and had rightly convicted the appellant.FindingsAt the very outset, the Court noted that a close scrutiny of the statements of all the evidence made it clear that there was no conclusive piece of evidence on record showing the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence and his conviction was solely premised on the statements of PW3, PW7 and PW9, who were witnesses to last seen.The Court held that the evidence of PW3, PW7, and PW9, which posited that the accused was seen with the deceased on the date of occurrence of the crime was not sufficient and conclusive to hold him guilty in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence and thus, it could not be said with certainty that it was the appellant who had committed the murder. In this regard, the Court observed,“We are not very much impressed by the evidence of these witnesses for the reason that they (PW/3 and PW/9) have simply stated that they saw the appellant with deceased and there is huge time gap between the last seen and death of deceased. Thus, these witnesses cannot be treated as a witness of last seen. The learned trial Court only on this ground that one day prior to the incident, the appellant was seen with the deceased and he did not offer any plausible explanation that when he parted the company of appellant, convicted the appellant but the name of appellant does not find place either in dehati merg intimation (Ex.P-24) or FIR (Ex.P-34. The date of lodging an FIR is 31.07.2018 and the police recorded the statement of witnesses namely Shikha Archana Yadav (PW-4) on 09.10.2018, Sandeep Kumar Nag (PW-6) on 25.08.2018, Lalita Markam (PW-9) on 08.10.2018, Ram Bai (PW-10) on 21.09.2018 and Lakhan Chandravanshi (PW-13) on 21.09.2018, which makes it crystal clear that theory of last seen came into play after one month of recording of FIR. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court accepting testimony of these witnesses for the purpose of last seen is not justified.”Furthermore, the Court stated that while the Investigating Officer had contacted the IDEA mobile company and produced call details, the prosecution had neither examined any officer from the mobile company nor proved that the recovered SIM belonged to the deceased's mobile. Even the lock and key, which were found lying at the crime spot, were not...

Corroborative Evidence Required To Substantiate Convictions Based On Last Seen Theory: Chhattisgarh High Court Reverses Rape-Murder Conviction

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Corroborative Evidence Required To Substantiate Convictions Based On Last Seen Theory: Chhattisgarh High Court Reverses Rape-Murder Conviction

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers