Why was the man acquitted in the 21-year-old murder case?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court has overturned a 21-year-old murder conviction due to insufficient circumstantial evidence. The court emphasized that the "last seen together" theory alone is inadequate for a conviction, highlighting the need for a complete chain of evidence. This ruling underscores the importance of due process and the burden of proof in criminal cases.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has annulled a 21-year-old murder conviction.
- Conviction based solely on the 'last seen together' theory is insufficient.
- Evidence must form a complete chain to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The ruling underscores the importance of due process in criminal cases.
- The appellant was granted the benefit of the doubt due to lack of corroborative evidence.
New Delhi, Dec 19 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man in a murder case that spans over 21 years, asserting that he cannot be found guilty based solely on the "last seen together" theory without a comprehensive chain of circumstantial evidence.
A panel of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra annulled the decisions made by the Chhattisgarh High Court and the trial court, both of which had convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), resulting in a life sentence for murder and five years of rigorous imprisonment for the destruction of evidence.
“A conviction based solely on the last seen together theory is unsustainable,” ruled the Justice Karol-led panel, explaining that the existing evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution claimed that the accused, along with several others, lured a tractor driver under the guise of gathering cable wire. The driver was subsequently discovered deceased with burn injuries.
While the trial court acquitted five co-defendants, it convicted the appellant primarily based on the testimonies supporting the last seen theory.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the established legal principle that circumstantial evidence must create a complete chain that unequivocally points to the accused's guilt.
“Circumstantial evidence can support a conviction only if it is entirely inconsistent with the accused's innocence and aligns solely with his guilt,” the panel emphasized.
Dismissing the prosecution's reliance on the last seen theory, it remarked: “A conviction cannot rest solely on the circumstance of being last seen together.”
The court also rejected the Chhattisgarh High Court’s inference against the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act for failing to clarify when he last parted ways with the deceased.
The judgment highlighted that Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution of its fundamental responsibility to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding that the claimed motive was unsubstantiated and that no corroborative evidence existed beyond the last seen theory, the Supreme Court concluded that the accused deserved the benefit of the doubt.
“In light of the above discussion, we believe that the circumstantial evidence against the accused, while raising suspicions of his involvement, is not conclusive enough to warrant a conviction based purely on the last seen theory,” it stated.
Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of all charges and released his bail bonds, as he was already on bail.
Point of View
I recognize the Supreme Court's ruling as a pivotal moment in affirming the standards of justice. This case highlights the essential principle that convictions must be founded on solid evidence rather than assumptions. Upholding the integrity of the legal process is paramount, and this decision illustrates the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness.
NationPress
24/12/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main reason for the Supreme Court's decision?
The Supreme Court overturned the conviction primarily because the evidence based on the 'last seen together' theory was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What does the term 'last seen together' mean in legal context?
'Last seen together' refers to a legal theory where a person is convicted based on the last known sighting of the victim and the accused, but it requires additional evidence to support a conviction.
What is the significance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases?
Circumstantial evidence is crucial as it must create a complete chain that directly links the accused to the crime, proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
What were the charges against the accused?
The accused was charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for murder and causing the disappearance of evidence.
Was anyone else involved in the case?
Yes, five co-defendants were acquitted by the trial court, while the appellant was primarily convicted based on the testimonies related to the last seen theory.
