New Delhi, Dec 19 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of an individual in a murder case dating back 21 years, asserting that a conviction cannot rest solely on the “last seen together” theory without a robust chain of circumstantial evidence.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra nullified the rulings of the Chhattisgarh High Court and the trial court, which had found the accused guilty 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.

The bench stated, “The conviction based solely on the last seen together theory is unsustainable,” emphasizing that the evidence presented was not sufficiently conclusive to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with other co-accused, lured a tractor driver under the guise of collecting cable wire, only for the driver to later be discovered deceased with burn injuries.

While five co-accused were acquitted by the trial court, the appellant was convicted primarily due to testimonies related to the last seen theory.

The apex court reiterated the legal principle that circumstantial evidence must create a complete chain that unequivocally indicates the accused's guilt.

“Circumstantial evidence can serve as the basis for an accused's conviction if it is entirely inconsistent with their innocence and exclusively points to their guilt,” the bench remarked.

Rejecting the prosecution's reliance on the last seen theory, the court noted: “A conviction cannot hinge solely on the circumstance of being last seen together.”

It also dismissed the Chhattisgarh High Court's method of drawing a negative inference against the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act for failing to clarify the moment he parted ways with the deceased.

The court clarified that Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution of its fundamental obligation to substantiate the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding that the purported motive was unproven and that there was no corroborative evidence aside from the last seen circumstance, the apex court determined that the appellant deserved the benefit of the doubt.

“In light of the aforementioned discussion, we believe that while the available circumstantial evidence raises a suspicion that he may have committed the offence, it is not sufficiently conclusive to justify a conviction based solely on the last seen together evidence,” it concluded.

Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of all charges and released him from his bail bonds, as he had already been on bail.