Summary
A murder conviction rested on last-seen evidence, allegedly recovered jewellery and the accused’s explanation and abscondence. The jewellery recovery was unreliable, and the High Court incorrectly attributed recovery of the body to an accused arrested much later. The remaining circumstances raised strong suspicion but failed to form a complete chain proving guilt. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence established a complete chain excluding reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
- Whether last-seen evidence, false explanation and abscondence could sustain the conviction after the recovery links failed.
Held
- Each necessary link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and the circumstances collectively must be consistent only with guilt. Last-seen evidence gains significance when the interval is sufficiently small to exclude an intervening person or event; that proximity was absent here. (¶¶ 9–10, 12)
- The alleged lenders never identified the recovered ornaments; they had no special identification marks, and the daughter’s identification was contradicted and materially improved. The High Court correctly rejected this recovery link. (¶¶ 6, 11)
- The body was recovered in July 1996, while the accused was arrested in December 1997. The High Court’s finding that it was recovered at his instance was manifestly erroneous. (¶¶ 8, 12)
- The explanation that the deceased remained with her sister, coupled with subsequent abscondence, supported strong suspicion. It could not repair the material contradictions and incomplete chain or replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. Appellant’s bail bonds discharged.