Summary
The High Court wrongly reversed acquittal on last-seen evidence and absence of an explanation alone. Medical timing left a substantial gap, while recovery and forensic circumstances failed to connect the appellants to the killing. Non-explanation could supplement established incriminating links but could not replace the missing prosecution chain.
Issues
- Whether last-seen evidence and non-explanation justified reversal of acquittal where other circumstances failed.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions were set aside because the circumstantial chain did not prove the appellants’ guilt. (¶ 12–23)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Failure to explain circumstances was insufficient by itself and could provide only an additional link after other incriminating circumstances were established. (¶ 19–21)
Held
- The High Court identified no perversity in the trial acquittal. It incorrectly bridged the interval between the last sighting and the medically estimated time of death through conjecture. (¶¶ 12, 16)
- Recovery and forensic evidence did not establish the prosecution’s asserted links. Last-seen evidence and lack of explanation alone could not sustain conviction; a complete chain excluding reasonable innocence was required. (¶¶ 13, 17–22)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and appellants acquitted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, with release unless required in another case.