Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Kidnapping and Murder Case Due to Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence and Failure to Prove Identity of Deceased. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside as Last Seen Theory Fails and Medical Evidence Contradicts Prosecution Case.

Admin

2026-05-18 23:29:55

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India heard appeals against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court which had reversed the trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellants for the kidnapping and murder of a 9-year-old boy, Arjun. The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession by Appellant No.1 and the last seen theory. The trial court had acquitted the accused, finding the evidence unreliable, but the High Court set aside the acquittal and imposed life imprisonment. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found material contradictions in the testimonies of the last seen witnesses, Kamlesh (PW-28) and Kashiben (PW-29), who gave inconsistent accounts of the incident and failed to inform the complainant despite knowing of the disappearance. The extra-judicial confession was not corroborated. Crucially, the identity of the deceased was not proved: the father did not identify the dead body in court, the post-mortem report indicated the deceased was around 16 years old while Arjun was 9, and no DNA test was conducted. The court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not point exclusively to the guilt of the appellants. Applying the principles of circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reversal of acquittal was unjustified. The appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of Proof - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 363, 364, 364-A, 365, 120-B - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt and all circumstances must point only towards the guilt of the accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory and the identity of the deceased, and the extra-judicial confession was unreliable. (Paras 12-15)

B) Evidence Law - Last Seen Theory - Reliability - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 8 - The last seen theory requires that the accused and deceased were seen together shortly before the incident and that there is proximity in time and place. The court found material contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses Kamlesh (PW-28) and Kashiben (PW-29) regarding the last seen incident, and their failure to inform the complainant despite knowing of the disappearance rendered their testimony unreliable. (Paras 10-11)

C) Evidence Law - Extra-judicial Confession - Corroboration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24 - Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, true, and corroborated by other evidence. The court noted that the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Appellant No.1 before 50 people was not corroborated by independent evidence and was not reliable. (Paras 2, 9)

D) Criminal Law - Identity of Deceased - Proof - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The prosecution must prove the identity of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the father of the deceased (PW-1) did not identify the dead body in his testimony, the post-mortem report indicated the deceased was around 16 years old while Arjun was 9, and no DNA test was conducted. Thus, the recovery of the dead body could not be attributed to the appellants. (Paras 11, 15)

E) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 378 - The appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal as the trial court's findings were plausible and based on evidence. (Paras 8-9, 15)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellants under Sections 302, 363, 364, 364-A, 365, 120-B IPC, Arms Act, and Indian Explosive Act based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory and extra-judicial confession.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the High Court, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Law Points

Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain pointing only to guilt
Extra-judicial confession must be reliable and corroborated
Last seen theory requires proximity in time and place
Identity of deceased must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Appellate court must not reverse acquittal without strong reasons

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (12) 99

Criminal Appeal Nos. 333-334 of 2017

2019-12-13

Krishna Murari, J.

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others

State of Gujarat

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for kidnapping and murder

Remedy Sought

Setting aside of conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court

Filing Reason

Appellants were convicted by the High Court reversing the trial court's acquittal

Previous Decisions

Trial court acquitted the accused on 17th January 2006; High Court reversed and convicted on 28th September 2016

Issues

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal based on circumstantial evidence? Whether the last seen theory and extra-judicial confession were reliable? Whether the identity of the deceased was proved beyond reasonable doubt?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the evidence was unreliable, the last seen theory failed due to contradictions, the extra-judicial confession was not corroborated, and the identity of the deceased was not established. Respondent/State argued that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove guilt and the High Court correctly reversed the acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt and all circumstances must point only towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory due to material contradictions in witness testimonies, the extra-judicial confession was unreliable, and the identity of the deceased was not established as the father did not identify the body, the post-mortem report indicated a different age, and no DNA test was conducted. Therefore, the High Court's reversal of acquittal was unjustified.

Judgment Excerpts

Thus, the theory of last seen fails and is rejected as a feeble and untrustworthy evidence. In this background, the version of the prosecution cannot sustain, and recovery of the dead body of Arjun cannot be attributed to the disclosure statements made by the appellants. It is well settled that in a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, law postulates two fold requirements:- (i) Every link in the chain of the circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (ii) All the circumstances must be consistent pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.

Procedural History

The trial court acquitted the accused on 17th January 2006. The State appealed to the Gujarat High Court, which reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellants on 28th September 2016. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeals and acquitted them.