New Delhi, Dec 19 (IANS) The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of an accused in a 21-year-old murder case, holding that he could not be convicted solely on the basis of the “last seen together” theory in the absence of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra quashed the judgments of the Chhattisgarh High Court and the trial court, which had convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and five years’ rigorous imprisonment for causing the disappearance of evidence.

“The conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained,” the Justice Karol-led Bench held, adding that the evidence on record was not conclusive enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the prosecution, the appellant, along with other accused persons, took a tractor driver on the pretext of collecting cable wire. The driver was later found dead with burn injuries.

While the trial court acquitted five co-accused, it convicted the appellant primarily relying on the testimonies relating to the last seen theory.

In its decision, the apex court reiterated the settled position of law that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused.

“Circumstantial evidence can be made the basis of conviction of an accused person if it is of such a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt,” the bench said.

Rejecting the prosecution’s reliance on the last seen theory, it observed: “A conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together.”

It also discarded the Chhattisgarh High Court’s approach of drawing an adverse inference against the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act for not explaining when he parted company with the deceased.

The judgment stated that Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding that the alleged motive was not proved and that there was no corroborative evidence apart from the last seen circumstance, the apex court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant, though raises a doubt that he may have committed the offence, but the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on the evidence of the last seen together,” it concluded.

The Supreme Court therefore acquitted the appellant of all charges and released his bail bonds, since he was already on bail.

–IANS

pds/vd