'Evidence Of Last Seen Together Not Enough': SC Sets Aside Conviction Of Man For Killing Wife's Cousin

News18

02-07-2025

Last Updated:
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra pointed out that in the case at hand, the only evidence against the appellant is of 'last seen together'
The Supreme Court has acquitted a man in a case of killing his wife's cousin in 2016, finding that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against him, though raising doubt that he may have committed the murder, was not so conclusive that he could be convicted only on the basis of evidence on 'last seen together'.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra pointed out that in the case at hand, the only evidence against the appellant is of 'last seen together'.
'The evidence of motive does not satisfy us to be an adverse circumstance against the appellant, inasmuch as if the appellant had any doubt about his wife's chastity, he would have caused injury or harm to his wife rather than to the wife's cousin with whom he had no animosity. Moreover, the so-called weapon of the offence, i.e. the stone, has not been recovered at his instance, nor is there any memorandum statement of the appellant," the bench said.
The bench emphasised that this Court, in Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2014), has 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.
Appellant Padman Bibhar challenged the validity of the judgment and order of April 15, 2024, passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, which had affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, convicting him for committing the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000, and imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000, respectively, for each of the offences.
The prosecution case was that at about 11 a.m. on April 4, 2016, the informant's son, Akash Garadia, along with Budhadeba Garadia and Susanta Kusulia and the appellant/accused, had been to the river nearby the village to take bath. From there, the appellant/accused and the deceased went to the cashew field to collect cashews. The appellant/accused and the deceased did not return for a long time; however, the two others returned to the village.
The informant, Kalia Garadia, inquired about the whereabouts of his son from the two others, who informed him that they had asked the appellant/accused about the deceased, to which he replied that the deceased would never return and if they disclosed this fact to the co-villagers, he would kill them. On the next day, i.e. April 5, 2016, at about 6:00 a.m., the informant went to the riverside in search of his son and found his dead body floating in the river. He lodged the FIR alleging that the appellant/accused had killed his son and thrown his dead body in the river.
The Trial Court held the appellant-accused guilty, finding that the evidence on 'last seen together' and recovery of the weapon, together with motive, were the circumstances that completed the chain of circumstantial evidence and were sufficient to hold the appellant/accused guilty of the commission of murder and causing disappearance of evidence. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court were affirmed by the High Court.
Considering the appeal, the bench said it was settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively, to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.
The bench pointed out that this Court, in Ramanand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981), had held that 'perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world and absolute certainty is a myth'. Further, this Court, in a celebrated judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984), had set down the golden rules in cases based on circumstantial evidence which is to be proved by the prosecution.
Examining the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the bench noted it emerged that when they were taking bath, other villagers were also present at the bathing ghat, and that the appellant and the deceased had gone to collect cashew nuts. However, when the appellant was inquired about the whereabouts of the deceased and was confronted, he did not admit guilt but rather accompanied the informant in search of the deceased near the river and cashew jungle. This conduct of the appellant suggests that he did not run away from the village nor admit guilt, as probably he had nothing to hide, the court said.
The witness of last seen stated that he saw the appellant and deceased going towards village Madhapadar at around 12 noon, and after some time, he saw the appellant returning alone. When asked about the deceased, the appellant did not reply. After asking three to four times, he replied that he had gone to a nearby village for some work, and thereafter, the appellant hurriedly took his bath and went away.
This witness claimed the appellant's wife was a cousin of the deceased. After marriage, the appellant had gone to Kerala and did not return. When his wife fell ill, she was taken to the hospital by her relatives. The appellant returned from Kerala and suspected his wife's illicit relations with a co-villager and, due to anger, he had killed Akash.
However, in cross-examination, he admitted that the police had not recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this fact about motive was narrated by him for the first time in court; hence, the same cannot be relied upon. Interestingly, the father of the deceased has not stated anything about the motive in his examination-in-chief. According to the complainant, the appellant is his nephew, being the son of his brother-in-law. Thus, the appellant and the complainant were close relatives, the bench noted.
The court also found that it was the case of the prosecution that the appellant neither admitted guilt nor got the weapon or dead body recovered at his instance. Even the chemical examination report was inconclusive, although human blood was found on the shirt and on the stone, but the blood group was not matched.
The present is a case where, except for the evidence of 'last seen together', there is no other incriminating material against the appellant, the bench noted.
The court relied upon Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013), which stated that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof, and conviction is not permissible only on the basis of suspicion.
It thus set aside the impugned conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and the Trial Court and acquitted the appellant.
About the Author
Sanya Talwar
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 02, 2025, 21:30 IST
News india 'Evidence Of Last Seen Together Not Enough': SC Sets Aside Conviction Of Man For Killing Wife's Cousin