Conviction cannot be based solely on 'last seen' circumstance: Supreme Court acquits murder accused

An accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of 'last seen' circumstance, the Supreme Court recently said while acquitting three persons convicted for the murder of a 7-year-old boy [Jabir and Others v. State of Uttarakhand]..A division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha was of the view that the 'last seen' doctrine has very limited application, if the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused and the time of murder, is narrow."It has been repeatedly emphasized by this court, that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the 'last seen' circumstance," the judgment said. In holding so, the Court acquitted the appellants who had been convicted by the trial court for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. as well as 7 years under Section 364 IPC and imprisonment for 5 years under Section 201 IPC..As per the facts of the case, the dead body of a seven-year old boy Haseen was found on October 10, 1999 in the sugarcane fields belonging to one Yaqub in Narayanpur village, situated at a distance from Akbarpur, Haseen’s village. His post mortem was conducted the next day i.e., on October 11 which provided that the death occurred two days prior to the post mortem; however, the report was silent with regard to time of death of boy.On November 19, 1999, the father of the deceased moved an application for registration of a First Information Report (FIR) before the magistrate, and the same came to be registered on November 21, 1999 i.e., around . weeks after the incident. The appellants were accused of committing murder of the child and were convicted by the trial court. The said decision was also upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court.Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court noted that the conviction of the appellants was based entirely on the testimonies of two witnesses who had stated that they had last seen the boy with the appellants on October 9, 1999. There was no other evidence adduced either before the trial court or the High Court, which could have proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the apex court further noted. Disapproving the 'last seen' circumstance as the only basis of conviction of the appellants, the Supreme Court observed:"This court is also of the opinion that apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime."Moreover, the Court also highlighted the lapses that the trial court and the High Court had ignored while convicting the appellants for the murder of the deceased boy."In the present case, save the “last seen” theory, there is no other circumstance or evidence. Importantly, the time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of the accused on 09-10-1999 and the 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 approximately two days before the post mortem, is not narrow. Given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the 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," the Court said. Therefore, the Court was of the view that conviction order passed by the trial court and later upheld by the High Court was unsustainable in the eyes of law.The appellants were, therefore, acquitted..[Read Judgment]