Summary
A 7-year-old boy went missing in 1999 and was found dead in a sugarcane field in another village. The FIR was lodged about six weeks later, on a Section 156(3) CrPC application. Three siblings were convicted of murder and kidnapping solely on 'last seen' evidence from the deceased's relatives. The Supreme Court acquitted them. The relatives' accounts were improbable and inconsistent. They said nothing at the inquest despite claiming to know of the accused's involvement, their police statements were recorded late, and their conduct was unnatural. Following Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Jaswant Gir and Rambraksh, last-seen evidence alone cannot sustain a conviction, especially where the time gap is not narrow and no other incriminating circumstance exists.
Issues
- Whether the appellants' conviction for murder, kidnapping and causing disappearance of evidence could rest solely on the 'last seen' testimony of the deceased's relatives, given the six-week delay in the FIR and inconsistencies in their evidence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302, 364 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions and sentences, including life imprisonment, affirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court were set aside as the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 26)
- Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The FIR was registered only on 21.11.1999 on an application dated 19.11.1999, about six weeks after the incident, a delay weighed with the other infirmities. (¶¶ 3, 16, 25)
Held
- PW-4 lived a few paces from the boy's house yet claimed ignorance of his disappearance, and claimed to have seen him with the first two accused at a specific spot in another village while answering nature's call near home; PW-5, a cousin, did nothing on seeing the boy with persons said to bear enmity and was examined two months later; and PW-2 and PW-3, though present at the inquest, disclosed nothing of the third accused's role, rendering their testimony untrustworthy. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 22)
- In circumstantial cases each circumstance and every link must be proved so as to exclude every hypothesis but guilt, applying the five principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. (¶ 21)
- The last-seen doctrine has limited application and cannot alone found a conviction, particularly where the time gap between the last sighting and death is not narrow; here nothing else connected the accused with the crime, so the conviction is unsustainable. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 2013 allowed; the Uttarakhand High Court judgment dated 05.10.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2004 set aside and the appellants' convictions and sentences quashed, with directions for their release unless required in another case; no costs.