Criminal Jurisprudence
Circumstantial evidence—Prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilty of the accused—Circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilty of accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
[Para 21]
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302 & 364—Kidnapping and murder—Conviction based on “last seen theory”—Appeal—“Last seen” doctrine has limited application, where time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder is narrow—Court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstances—Save the “last seen” theory, there is no other circumstance or evidence—Time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of accused and probable time of his death, based on the post mortem report, which was conducted two days later, but was silent about the probable time of death, though it stated that death occurred two days before the post mortem, is not narrow—Serious inconsistencies in the depositions of witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants is not justified—Conviction set aside—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 22, 23 & 25]