Partap Singh v. State Ofpb.Etc

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAToCHANDIGARH

(101) CRA-D-35-DB-2004o(Oo&oM) Reservedoon:o19.05.2025 DateoofoPronouncement:22.05.2025 PartapoSingho ooooo....oappellant V/s StateoofoPunjabo ooooo oooo...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoGURVINDERoSINGHoGILL HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoJASJIToSINGHoBEDI Present: Mr.oPreetinderoSinghoAhluwalia,oAdvocate, withoMs.oSimarpreetoSekhon,oAdvocateoando Mr.oUdaiveeroSidhu,oAdvocate,oforotheoappellant.o Mr.oSiddharthoAttri,oAAG,oPunjab.o o***** oJASJIToSINGHoBEDI,ooJ.o Theopresentoappealohasobeenofiledoagainstotheojudgmentoof convictionoandoorderoofosentenceodatedo10.12.2003opassedobyotheoAdditional SessionsoJudge,oSangrur.o

¶2TheoinstantoFIRocameotoobeoregisteredoono31.01.2001.o oThe accused-appellant/PartapoSinghoalongwithohisoco-accused/SubaoSinghocame toobeoconvictedovideojudgmentoofoconvictionoandoorderoofosentenceodated

10.12.2003.o oTheopresentoappealoagainstotheojudgmentoofoconvictionoand orderoofosentenceowasofiledoinoJanuary,o2004.ooTheomatterohasocomeoupofor finalohearingonowoafteroalmosto24oyearsoofotheoregistrationoofotheoFIR.

¶3TheoFIRoinothisocaseowasoregisteredoonotheobasisoofoanoaffidavit datedo31.01.2001,oswornobyocomplainantoBaljitoSinghosonoofoBhimoSinghoof villageoGanduoKhurd.oAsoperotheocomplainant,otheyowereothreeobrothers. SurjitoSinghowasoyoungerotootheocomplainantowhoohadobeenoservingoat DhaliwaloMedicaloHall,oSangrurobetweeno1993otoo1998.oPartapoSinghowho wasoaoProprietoroofosaidochemistoshop,ohadoaodoubtothatoSurjitoSinghowas havingoillicitorelationsowithohiso(PartapoSingh's)owifeoandodueotoothatoreason, PartapoSinghoturnedooutoSurjitoSinghofromohisoshop.oThereafter,oSurjitoSingh startedoworkingowithoBalwantoMedicaloHall,oLongowal.oSurjitoSingholater wantedotooopenohisoownomedicaloshopoatoSangruroandoforothatopurpose,otook onorentoaoshoponearoPartapoMedicaloHall.oOno22.01.2001,otheocomplainant alongowithohisofatheroBhimoSinghoandoSurjitoSinghowentotooDhaliwaloMedical HallotoomeetoPartapoSinghoandouponotheirorequest,oPartapoSinghoagreedoto helpoSurjitoSinghoinorunningohisoownobusiness.ooHeo(PartapoSingh)otoldothem (complainantoparty)othatoheowasogoingotooLudhianaotoopurchaseosome medicinesothatoeveningoandothatoSurjitoSinghocouldoaccompanyohimoto LudhianaoandoheowouldointroduceoSurjitoSinghoinotheomarketoatoLudhiana. TheocomplainantofurtherosworeothatoaosumoofoRs.o75,000/-owasohandedoover tooSurjitoSinghoforotheopurchaseoofomedicines.oOno22.01.2001,oatoabouto6.00 p.m.,oPartapoSinghoalongwithohisoservantocameotooJatinderoSingh'soModern X-rayoshop,oSangruroandoinotheopresenceoofooneoParveenosonoofoMohanoLal, askedoaboutotheowhereaboutsoofoSurjitoSingh.oInotheomeantime,oSurjitoSingh contacted o Jatinder o Singh o over o the o telephone o and o there o took o place o a telephonicotalkobetweenoSurjitoSinghoandoPartapoSinghoalso.o oThereafter, aboutotenominutesoSurjitoSinghocameotootheoshopoofoJatinderoSinghoandoSurjit Singh o accompanied o by o Partap o Singh, o went o away. o oAt o 6.30 o p.m. o on

22.01.2001oitself,otheocomplainantoalongwithohisofatheroBhimoSinghowere presentoatoOctroioSangrurowhereotheyosawoShamsheroSingh,oPartapoSinghoand SurjitoSinghocomingofromotheosideoofoSangrur,oinoaoredocolouredoMarutiocar. TheosaidoMarutiocarowasobeingodrivenobyoPartapoSingh.oSurjitoSinghowas sittingonextotoohimoonotheofrontoseatoandotheocarowasogoingotowardsoLudhiana. Ono23.01.2001,otheocomplainantowaitedoforoSurjitoSingh'soreturnobutoinovain. Ono24.01.2001,otheocomplainantopartyomadeoenquiriesoaboutotheowhereabouts ofoSurjitoSingh,ofromoPartapoSinghoandoShamsheroSinghobutotheyocouldonot giveoanyosatisfactoryoreply.oSurjitoSinghowasocarryingohisopassobookoof Punjabo&oSindoBank,oSangruroandowasowearingoaowristowatchoandoaogold ring.oUponotheofailureoofoaforesaidopersonsotoosatisfyotheocomplainantoparty regardingotheowhereaboutsoofoSurjitoSingh,otheocomplainantosideobecame suspiciousothatoPartapoSinghoandohisobrotheroShamsheroSinghohadoeither concealedoSurjitoSinghodueotootheoabovesaidogrudgeoorohadokilledohim.oOnothe basisoofothisoaffidavit,otheopoliceoinitiallyoregisteredoanoFIRounderoSections 365/34oIPC.oDuringoinvestigationotheocomplainantoBaljitoSinghotoldothe policeothatotheonumberoofotheoredocolouredoMarutiocarowasoDBA-5882.oThe statementsoofowitnessesowereorecorded.oOno12.02.2001,oaccusedoPartap Singh, o Shamsher o Singh o and o Suba o Singh o were o arrested. o o Earlier, o on

10.02.2001,oaoreportohadobeenorecordedoagainstotheoDDRoNo.13odated

09.02.2001,oP.S.Sangato(Bathinda)oregardingotheorecoveryoofoanounidentified deadobody.oTheobelongingsoofodeceasedohadobeenotakenointoopossessionovide aomemo.oDuringotheocourseoofoinvestigation,ouponoaodisclosureostatement madeobyoSubaoSingh,otheopassobookoofotheodeceasedoandoaoMobileophone belonging o to o accused o Partap o Singh, o were o recovered o and o taken o into possession.oTheocaroNo.DBA-5882oallegedlyousedoforotheocommissionoof offence,owasotakenointoopossession.oSiteoplanowasoprepared.oAsoperotheoPMR, theocauseoofodeathowasodueotooasphyxiaoasoaoresultoofothrottlingoowhichowas sufficientotoocauseodeathoinotheoordinaryocourseoofonature.oAfterocompletion ofoinvestigationoandootheroformalities,otheoprosecutionopresentedotheochallan inotheoCourt.

¶4Onocommitment,ochargesowereoframedounderoSectiono364,o302 IPCoando201oIPCoagainstoallotheoaccused.oTheyopleadedonotoguiltyoand claimedoTrial.

¶5In o order o to o prove o its o case,o the o prosecution o examined o21 witnesses.ooTheogistoofotheirostatementsoisoasounder:- Dr.oK.S.oBrar,oCMO,oCiviloHospital,oBathindaowasoexaminedoas PW-1.ooHeostatedothatoheoconductedotheopost-mortemoexaminationoonothe deceased.ooTheobodyowasodiscoloured,ofoulosmellingoandothereowereobloated features.oScalpohairowasoabsent.oToothoandonailsowereoeasilyopulledoout. Adipocereoformationowasopresentoatoplaces.oTheoskinopealedooffoatoplaces.oOn dissectionoofotheoneck,ounderlineotissuesowereoconjustedoandothereowasoa fractureoofotheohyoidoboneocornuaoorohyoidoboneoareodoingoinverts. Injuries 5cmoxo1cmograzedoabrasionoisopresentoonotheoleftolatero posterioroaspectoofotheoneck. Inohisoopinion,otheocauseoofodeathoinothisocaseowasodueoto asphyxiaoasoaoresultoofothrottlingowhichowasosufficientotoocauseodeathoinothe ordinaryocourseoofonatureoandoante-mortemoinonature.o oHeostatedothatothe probableotimeobetweenotheoinjuryoandotheodeathowasowithino4otoo10ominutes andotheoprobableotimeowithinotheodeathoandotheopost-mortemowasowithino2-3 weeks.oo Dr.oBhupenderoSinghowasoexaminedoasoPW-2.ooHeostatedothatohe wasotheoowneroofoaoredocolouredoMarutioCarobearingoregistrationoNo.DBA-5882.ooThisocarowasosoldobyohimotooSubaoSinghobutoheocouldonotoidentifyohim. Theocomplainant-BaljitoSinghowasoexaminedoasoPW-3.o oHis statementohasoalreadyobeenoreferredotoohereinabove.ooAdditionally,oheostated thatoono10.02.2001,oheojoinedotheopoliceopartyoinosearchoofohisobrother.ooThe policeopartyowasoinformedothatotheodeadobodyoofoaopersonoofosameodescription wasorecoveredobyothemofromoRajwahaoinotheoareaoofoDoomwalioaodayoearlier andothatotheopost-mortemoofotheodeadobodyohadobeenoconductedoatoCivil Hospital,oBathindaoafterowhichoitohadobeenocremated.o oBasedoonothis information,otheyowentotooPoliceoStationoSangatowhereoaoparcelocontainingoa redot-shirt,oEx.P-1,ooneobanyanowhiteocolouredoEx.P-3,oaogreyocolouredopant Ex.P-2oandoblueocolouredounderwearoEx.P-4,oaopairoofonikkaroEx.P-5,oaopair ofosocksoofoblueocolouroEx.P-6oandoWoodlandoshoesoEx.P-8oalongwithoaoring ofohisobrotherowereohandedooveroandotakenointoopoliceopossessionobyothe police o party. o o On o 12.02.2001, o Partap o Singh o and o Suba o Singh o were apprehendedowhileodrivingoinoaocarobearingoNo.DBA-5882.ooFromotheosearch ofoSubaoSingh,oaomobileophoneowasorecovered.ooTheocaroandotheoRCowere alsootakenointoopossession.ooInocross-examination,oheostatedothatobetween

20.01.2001oando31.01.2001,otheyodidonotomoveoanyoapplication/complaint beforeotheoauthoritiesooroengagedoanyolawyerotoomoveosuchoapplication.ooHe identifiedoaowristowatchobelongingotoohisobrotheroEx.P-10oandotheogoldoring containingotheoinscriptionoofo'SS'oEx.P-11.oo BhimoSingh,ofatheroofotheodeceasedowasoexaminedoasoPW-4. HisoversionoisosimilarotoothatoofohisosonoBaljitoSingh.ooInocross-examination, heostatedothatoaftero24.01.2001,oheohadocomeotooSangruroonlyoono05.02.2001. HeohadonotogivenoanyowrittenocomplaintoregardingohisosonoSurjitoSingh, though,ohisootheroson-BaljitoSinghodid.oo TheostatementoofoNachhataroSinghowasorecordedoasoPW-5.ooHe statedothatoono22.01.2001oatoabouto8.30op.m.,oheoalongwithosonoofoChanan SinghowasocomingoonoscooterofromoRarhaoSahiboGurudwaraoandogoing towardsoSangrur.ooInotheolightoofotheoscooter,oheosawoaoredocolouredoMaruti carostandingonearotheoroad.ooHeosawoaccusedoPartapoSingh,oShamsheroSingh andoSubaoSinghostandingooutsideothatocarowhileoSurjitoSingh-deceasedowas sittingoinsideoonotheofrontoseat.o oHeostoppedotheoscooteroandoonoasking, ShamsheroSinghostatedothatotheyowereogoingotooLudhianaotoopurchase medicinesoandohadotooobtainomoneyofromosomebodyoforotheosaleoofobuffalos. Theyohadostoppedotoourinate.ooThereafter,oheohadoremainedoawayofromothe villageoforoabouto16/17odaysoandothenoono10.02.2001,oheohadocomeotoothe villageoandowasoinformedothatotheoSurjitoSinghohadobeenomurderedoandohis deadobodyowasothrownoinotheoCanal.o oOno11.02.2001,oheonarratedothe aforesaidooccurrenceotootheopolice.ooHeoidentifiedotheowristowatchoEx.P-10 andotheocarobearingoregistrationoNo.DBA-5882omakeoMarutiousedobyothe accused.ooInocross-examination,oheostatedothatoBhimoSinghofatheroofoSurjit Singh-deceasedowasohisouncleoinorelation.ooBalwinderoSinghoPWowasotheoson ofotheomaternalouncleoofohisofather.ooHisovillageowasoatodistanceoofoabouto100 kms.ofromotheoplaceowhereoheolastosawotheodeceasedoinotheocompanyoofothe accused.ooSimilarly,otheovillageoofoBalwinderoSinghowasoalsooatoaosimilar distanceofromotheoplaceowhereotheyolastosawotheoaccusedoinotheocompanyoof theodeceased.ooHeoadmittedothatodueotoofog,omovementoonotheoscooterowas difficultoinotheonightotimeoato8.30op.m.oHeoadmittedothatotheodistanceobetween hisohouseoandotheohouseoofoSurjitoSinghowaso150oyards.oo TheostatementoofoSamiroKhano@oSonuowasorecordedoasoPW-6. Heostatedothatoono22.01.2001oatoabouto6.40op.m.owhileoheowasoaccompanied byoSatoPaloandotheyowereocomingofromoSangrurotowardsoLaddaoKothioonofoot, nearotheofarmhouseoofoShamsheroSingh,otheyosawoaoredoMarutiocarooldomodel bearingoNo.DBA-5882ocomingofromotheosideoofotheoSangrur.ooItowasobeing drivenobyoaccused-PartapoSingh.ooOnotheofrontoseatoSurjitoSinghowasositting whereasoShamsheroSinghowasosittingoinotheorearoseat.ooSubaoSinghocameoout fromotheofarmhouseoofoShamsheroSingh,osatoinotheosameocaroafterowhichoit droveoaway.o DarshanoSinghowasoexaminedoasoPW-7.ooHeostatedothatoheohad seenoaodeadobodyonearotheoMogaoofoaocanaloofoaoyoungomanoofotheoageoof abouto25oyears.oo DharminderoSinghodraftsmanowasoexaminedoasoPW-8.o oHe preparedotheoscaledositeoplan/Ex.PKoono07.03.2001.o Sonu-photographerowasoexaminedoasoPW-9.ooHeostatedothatohe tookofiveophotographsoEx.PLotooEx.PO/1,otheonegativesoofowhichowereoEx.PP tooP-T.o VijayoKumarowasoexaminedoasoPW-10.ooHeostatedothatoheohad crematedotheodeadobodyoofoanounknownopersonowhichohadobeenohandedoover toohimoforocremationobyotheopoliceooofoPoliceoStationoSangatpura.ooHeowasothe PresidentoofoSaharaooJanoSewa,oBathinda.oo ChamanoLalowasoexaminedoasoPW-11.ooHeostatedothatotilloApril, 2003oheowasoM.C.oofoMandi,oSangato(Bathinda)oo2otoo2½oyearsoopriorotoothe occurrence,oheohadogoneotooPoliceoStationoSangatoinoconnectionowithosome work.ooTwoopersons,oaoSarpanchoandohisobrotherowhooheodidonotoknowoearlier, wereopresentoatotheopoliceostation.o oTheopoliceobrokeoopenoaobundle containingoaopant,oaoshirt,oaogoldoringobearingoimpressiono'SS'oandoaopairoof bootsowhichowereoidentifiedobyothoseotwoopersonsoinohisopresenceoandothatoof theopolice.o MHCoRajwinderoSinghowasoexaminedoasoPW-12.ooHeobrought theooriginaloDDRoregisterocontainingoDDRoNo.13odatedo09.02.2001,oP.P., Doomwali,oPoliceoStationoSangat.oo ASIoJagdishoKumarowasoexaminedoasoPW-13.ooHeostatedothatoon

09.02.2001,oheoalongwithotheopoliceopartyowasopresentoatotheoBarrier Doomwali o where o Darshan o Singh-Chowkidar o gave o information o of o an unidentifiedodeadobodyolyingonearotheoKinooogardenoofoRanjitoSingh.ooInquest proceedings owereo conducted oand otheo bodyo was osento foro post-mortem examination.ooAtoPoliceoStationoSangat.oChamanoLal,oM.C.owasocalledooandoin hisopresence,oaoparcelocontainingoclothesoofotheodeceasedowereoopenedoand wereoshownotooBaljitoSinghowhooidentifiedotheoclothesotoobeothoseoofohis brother.ooThereafter,otheobodyowasohandedooverotooSaharaoWelfareoClubofor cremation.o o oInocross-examination,oheostatedothatoheohadoseenotheoDDR RegisteroofoPoliceoPostoDoomwaliodatedo10.02.2001.ooItsophotocopyofrom DDRoNo.1otoo14oisoEx.DXoandoDDRoofoPoliceoStationoSangatodated

10.02.2001oisoEx.DY. ASIoAjitoSinghowasoexaminedoasoPW-14.o oHeoreferredoto differentoaspectsoofoinvestigation.ooAoringobelongingotootheodeceasedowasogot identifiedoinohisopresenceoandotheoidentificationomemooofotheoclothesoandoring Ex.PXowasopreparedobyohim.o BalkaroSingh-AccountantowasoexaminedoasoPW-15.ooHeostated thatoheohadobroughtotheobankoaccountorecordopertainingotooSurjitoSinghoatothe PunjaboandoSindoBank,oSangrur.ooTheopassobookoEx.P-13ohadobeenoissued fromotheirobranch.o SIoSukhramowasoexaminedoasoPW-16.o oHeostatedothatoon

05.03.2001,ohisostatementowasorecordedowithorespectotoodifferentoaspectsoof investigation. oAfter o completion o of o the o investigation, o the o challan o was submittedotooSHOoRattanoSingh.o ASIoBalbiroChandowasoexaminedoasoPW-17.o oHeoreferredoto differentoaspectsoofoinvestigation.o oHeoalsoostatedothatoono03.02.2001,ohe alongwithoGurmailoSingh-H.C.,oDavinderoPaloSingh-PHGoconductedoaoraid atotheohouseoofoaccusedoandorecordedostatementsoofoJatinderoSingho@oJitti, Sonuo@oSamiroKhanoandoRanbiroSingh.ooPW-SonuonamedoSubaoSingh.oOn

05.02.2001,o heo recorded o theo statement o of o Bhim o Singh, o father o ofo the deceased.ooOno12.02.2001,oheoarrestedoShamsheroSinghowhooonohisopersonal searchogotorecoveredooneorevolveroofo.32oboreoalongwitho02oemptyoando02 liveocartridges.ooHeorecordedotheostatementsoofoPWs-TejaoSinghoandoH.C. MalkiatoSingh.ooOno15.02.2001,oallotheothreeoaccusedowereointerrogatedoinohis presence.ooOnointerrogation,oSubaoSinghomadeoaodisclosureostatementobefore SIoKulwantoSinghoinohisopresenceoandoinotheopresenceoofoPW-5/Nachhatar SinghothatopassobookoofotheoPunjaboandoSindoBankoandoaowristowatchoofothe deceasedohadobeenoconcealedobyohimoafterotheomurderoandoheocouldogetothe sameorecovered.ooAostatementoEx.PDowasorecorded.ooOnotheobasisoofothe disclosureostatement,oheogotorecoveredotheopassobook/Ex.P-13oandotheowrist watch/Ex.P-10 o both o of o which o were o taken o into o police o possession. PW-5/NachhataroSinghoidentifiedotheowristowatchotoobeothatoofotheodeceased.o SIoKulwantoSinghowasoexaminedoasoPW-18.ooHeostatedothatoon

12.02.2001,oinotheopresenceoofoBaljitoSingh-brotheroofotheodeceased,oPartap SinghoandoSubaoSinghowereoapprehendedowhileodrivingoinoaocar.ooSubaoSingh gotorecoveredoaomobileophoneoNo.98141-33570omakeoMotorola.ooHeosuffered aodisclosureostatementoleadingotootheorecoveryoofoaopassobookoandoaowrist watchobelongingotootheodeceased.oo KulwantoSingh-ReaderoTehsildar,oTaranoTarn,owasoexaminedoas PW-19.o oHeobroughtotheorecordoregardingotheotransferoofocarobearing No.DBA-5882ofromotheonameoofoBhagwanpreetoSinghosonoofoSadhuoSinghoto Dr.oBhupinderoSinghosonoofoDarshanoSingh.o SubhashoChand/PW-20obroughtotheooriginalorecordopertainingoto telephoneoconnectionoNo.33141ostandingoinotheonameoofoShamsheroSingh-partneroM/soDhaliwaloMEDICALoHall,oOppositeoCiviloHospital,oSangrur.o H.C.oRanjitoSingh/PW-20o(wronglyomentionedoasoPW-20obyothe TrialoCourtowhileorecordingohisostatementoasoprosecutionowitness)otendered intooevidenceohisoaffidavitoEx.PHH.o

6.o TheostatementsoofoaccusedopersonsowereorecordedounderoSection 313oCr.P.C.owhereinotheyodeniedotheocorrectnessoofoprosecutionoversionoand prosecution o evidence o against o them o and o claimed o no o concern o with o the deceasedoorohisodisappearance.ooTheyoclaimedothatotheyowereoinnocentoand hadobeenofalselyoimplicatedoinotheocase.o

¶7Inodefenceoevidence,oDW-1/NarinderoSingh,ostatedothatoheohad neveroseenoSurjitoSingh,osinceodeceased,oworkingoinotheoMedicaloStoreoat Longowal.oDW-2/HCoKamaljitoSinghobroughtotheolog-bookoofoAlwanoNissan No.PB-13-B-1576.oAsoperohim,oASIoBalbiroChandooroKulwantoSinghodidonot goooutsideotheolimitoofotheoSangruroCity.oCopyoofotheologoentryoisoEx.DAE. DW-3/HakamoSinghoaoteacheroinotheoGovt.oPrimaryoSchool,oGanduoKhurd, statedothatoasoperotheiroadmissionoregister,otheodateoofobirthoofoSurjitoSingh waso10.01.1970.ooHeopassedo5thoClassoinotheoyearo1982oandothenoleftothe school.oCopyoofoentryoisoEx.DAF.oDW-4/Const.oMajoroSinghostatedothatothe summonedorecordohadosinceobeenoweededoouto(destroyed).oDW-5/VijayoPal Incharge,oPSEB,oCiviloLines,ostatedothatoono22.01.2001oaccusedoSubaoSingh, wasoworkingoasoaoSuboStationoAttendantoatoAmritsar,owasopresentoinothe officeobetweeno9oa.m.otoo5op.m.oTheoentryofromoattendanceoregisterois Ex.DEEoandocertificateoissuedobyotheoSDOoisoEx.DFFoandoenrolmentobilloof employeesoisoEx.DGG.oTheowitness,ohowever,ofailedotooproduceoduringohis cross-examination,oanyoentryoorowritingothatohisocolleagueoSubaoSingh (accused)omightohaveomadeoinorecords,oonothatoday.oDW-6/Satwinderjit Singh,oSuboStationoAttendant,oPSEB,oCiviloLines,oAmritsarohasoalsoomadeoa similarostatement,obutoheoalsoocouldonotoproduceoanyowritingoworkooroentry madeobyoaccusedoSubaoSinghoinotheoofficeorecordsoono22.01.2001.oThereafter, theodefenceoclosedoitsoevidence.o

¶8Basedoonotheoevidenceoled,otheoaccused-appellant,onamely, PartapoSinghoalongwithohisoco-accused/SubaoSinghocameotoobeoconvictedoand sentencedobyotheoCourtoofotheoAdditionaloSessionsoJudge,oSangrur,ovide judgmentoofoconvictionoandoorderoofosentenceodatedo10.12.2003oasounder:- Nameoofothe Offence Sentenceo Fine In o default o of accused U/Ss paymentoofofine Partap o Singh 302oIPC Life Rs.10,000/- RIo01oyearoeach and o Suba Imprisonmento eacho Singh 364oIPC RIo10oyears Rs.2,000/- RIo06omonthsoeach eacho 201oIPC RIo03omonths Rs.1,000/- RIo03omonthsoeach each Allotheosentencesowereoorderedotoorunoconcurrently.o

¶9The o aforementioned o judgment o of o conviction o and o ordero of sentenceodatedo10.12.2003opassedobyotheoAdditionaloSessionsoJudge,oSangrur

¶10During o theo pendency o of o this o appeal, o the o sentence o of o the accused-appellant,onamely,oPartapoSinghowasosuspendedobyothisoCourtovide orderodatedo08.04.2004.

¶11Theolearnedocounseloforotheoappellantocontendsothatoasoperothe allegations,otheodeceasedowaso"lastoseen"oinotheocompanyoofotheoaccusedoon

22.01.2001.ooTheoFIRocameotoobeoregisteredoonlyoono31.01.2001.ooTheobody wasofoundoono09.02.2001.ooJatinderoSinghoandoParveenowhoowereonamedoin theoFIRoasohavingoseenotheoaccusedowithotheodeceasedowereostrangelyoenough notoexaminedoasoprosecutionowitnesses.oTheostatementoofoPW-3/BhimoSingh, theofatheroofotheodeceasedowasofirstorecordedounderoSectiono161oCr.P.C.oonly ono05.02.2001.o oSimilarly,otheostatementounderoSectiono161oCr.P.C.oof PW-5/NachhataroSinghowhooisoalsooaorelativeoofotheodeceasedowasorecorded onlyoono11.02.2001.ooTheostatementoofoPW-6/SamiroKhano@oSonuounder Sectiono161oCr.P.C.owasorecordedoono03.02.2001.o oThisodelayoinothe recordingoofotheoFIRoandotheostatementsounderoSectiono161oCr.P.C.oduringothe courseoofoinvestigationoisofatalotootheoprosecutionocase.ooEvenootherwise, evidenceoinotheonatureoofo"lastoseen"oisorelevantoonlyowhenotheotimeogap betweenotheolastosightingoofotheoaccusedowithotheodeceasedoandotheodiscovery ofotheodeadobodyoisosoosmallothatotheopossibilityoofoanyootheropersonobeing withotheodeceasedoisototallyoruledoout.ooThatoisonotosooinotheopresentocase. Further,otheoconvictionocannotobeosolelyobasedouponotheoevidenceoinothe natureoofo"lastoseen".ooInotheoinstantocase,ootherothanotheo"lastoseen"oevidence thereoisotheorecoveryoofoaowatchoandopassobookopurportedlyobelongingotoothe deceasedofromoaccusedoSubaoSinghowhoohasosinceopassedoaway.ooHe,othus, contendsothatotheoimpugnedojudgmentoisoliableotoobeosetoaside.ooRelianceois placedoono'VenkatesanoversusoStateoofoTamiloNaduo2008(3)oRCRo(Criminal) 563,oKrishnanoandoRamasamyoandoothersoversusoStateoofoTamilnadu 2014(12)oSCCo279,oNizamoandoanr.oVersusoStateoofoRajasthano2015(4) RCRo(Criminal)o271,oAnjanoKumaroSarmao&oothersoversusoStateoofoAssam 2017(3)oRCRo(Criminal)o386,oDineshoKumaroversusoTheoStateoofoHaryana 2023(3)oRCRo(Criminal)o1,oR.oSreenivasaoversusoStateoofoKarnataka (CriminaloAppealoNo.859oofo2011odecidedoono06.09.2023)oandoSanjay versusoStateoofoUttaroPradesho2025oINSCo317o'.

¶12TheolearnedocounseloforotheoState,oonotheootherohand,ocontends thatothereoisoevidenceoofotheodeceasedobeingoseenolastoinotheocompanyoofothe accused o by o PW-3/Baljit o Singh-complainant, o PW-4/Bhim o Singh, o PW-5/ NachhataroSinghoandoPW-6/SamiroKhano@oSonu.ooAdditionally,otheorecovery ofoaowristowatcho(Ex.P-10)oandopassobooko(Ex.P-13)oofotheodeceasedohave beenoeffectedofromoSubaoSingh.ooHe,othus,ocontendsothatoasotheooffenceostands establishedobeyondoreasonableodoubt,otheopresentoappealomeritsodismissal.o

¶13Weohaveoheardotheolearnedocounseloforotheoparties.

¶14Theopresentocaseoisobasedoonocircumstantialoevidenceoandoinothe contextoofocircumstantialoevidence,otheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocase of oS#arado4irid#iti#andoSardaoVs*oStateoofo5a#aras#tra!o%(8&o+IR Su/remeoCourto% 22oheldoasounder:. "152. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:"

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court inoShivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793owhere the following observations were made :" "certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶153These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. " 6e phasisosupplied8SUKHPREET KAUR -n oRamanand o 6 o Nandlal o 4#arti o Versus o State o of o 1ttar o2rades#!o2022o+IRoSu/remeoCourto52'3oo,oinotheoconte@toofocircu stantial evidence,otheo3onGbleoSupre eoBourtoheldoasounder:. "46. Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows:

¶1Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established;

¶2Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature;

¶3The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶4The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved."

¶47There cannot be any dispute to the fact that the case on hand is one of the circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness of the occurrence. It is settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, theoprosecution is able to proveobeyond I attest to the accuracy and reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilty of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye witness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the expected principles in that regard." 6C phasisosupplied8 %heo3onGbleoSupre eoBourtoinotheocaseoofo+njluso-un7dun7 VersusoStateoofo8#ark#and!o200 (&)oRCRo(Criminal)ohasoheldothatosuspicion howsoeverostrongocannotota!eotheoplaceoofoproof.o%heorelevantoparaoisoas under:. "12. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it would be clear that out of the five circumstances, theoprosecution has failed to proveothe recovery of bloodstainedobalwaoandotangioupon the disclosure statement of accused Rajesh Yadav @ Raju Gowala by credible evidence. The circumstance that the appellant came to his village from Punjab four to five days before the date of the alleged occurrence and was seen by PW18 in village Simdega cannot be said to be an unnatural conduct on the part of the appellant, as such the same cannot be taken as a circumstance against him. Recovery of one torch cell and knife from the pocket of appellant after the date of alleged occurrence cannot be used as a circumstance against him, especially when neither there is any case nor evidence that the knife recovered was stained with blood. The other circumstances which remain are motive and letter written by the appellant giving false information to his brother that he was dead. These two circumstances raise strong suspicion 2025.05.22 22:40 against the appellant, but it is well settled that suspicion howsoeverostrongoitomayobeocannototakeotheoplaceoofoproof.oInoany viewoofotheomatter,oonotheobasisoofotheseocircumstances,oitoisonot possibleotoodrawoanoirresistibleoconclusionowhichoisoincompatible withoinnocenceoofotheoappellantosooasotoocompleteotheochain.oItois wellosettledothatoinoaocaseoofocircumstantialoevidence,otheochainoof circumstancesomustobeocompleteoandoinocaseothereoisoanyomissing linkotherein,otheosameocannotoformotheobasisoofoconviction.oForothe foregoingoreasons,oweoareoofotheoopinionothatoprosecutionohas failedotooproveoitsocaseobeyondoreasonableodoubtoagainstoallothe accusedopersons,omucholessotheoappellant." (Emphasisosupplied)

¶15TheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtohasodealtowithotheoevidentiary value o of o "last o seen" o evidence. o Some o of o the o relevant o judgments o are enumeratedohereunder:-o Ino'VenkatesanoversusoStateo ofoTamil oNaduo2008(3)oRCR (Criminal)o563',owhereotheotime-gapobetweenotheodeceasedo"lastoseen"oinothe companyoofotheoaccusedoandohisodeathowaso03odays,otheoHon'bleoSupreme Courtoheldoasounder:-

13.oSoofaroasotheolastoseenoaspectoisoconcernedoitoisonecessaryoto takeonoteoofotwoodecisionsoofothisocourt.oInoStateoofoU.P.ov. Satish,o2005(1)oApexoCriminalo437o:o[2005(3)oSCCo114]oitowas notedoasofollowso: "22.oTheolastoseenotheoryocomesointooplayowhereotheotime-gapobetweenotheopointoofotimeowhenotheoaccusedoandothe deceasedowereoseenolastoaliveoandowhenotheodeceasedois foundodeadoisosoosmallothatopossibilityoofoanyopersonoother thanotheoaccusedobeingotheoauthoroofotheocrimeobecomes impossible. o It o would o be o difficult o in o some o cases o to positivelyoestablishothatotheodeceasedowasolastoseenowith 2025.05.22 22:40 theoaccusedowhenothereoisoaolongogapoandopossibilityoof otheropersonsocomingoinobetweenoexists.oInotheoabsenceoof anyootheropositiveoevidenceotooconcludeothatotheoaccused andotheodeceasedowereolastoseenotogether,oitowouldobe hazardousotoocomeotooaoconclusionoofoguiltoinothoseocases. Inothisocaseothereoisopositiveoevidenceothatotheodeceased andotheoaccusedowereoseenotogetherobyowitnessesoPWs.o3 ando5,oinoadditionotootheoevidenceoofoPW-2."

14.oInoRamreddyoRajeshoKhannaoReddyov.oStateoofoA.P.,o2006(2) RCRo(Criminal)o462o:o2006(1)oApexoCriminalo675o:o[2006(10) SCCo172]oitowasonotedoasofollowso: "27.oTheolast-seenotheory,ofurthermore,ocomesointooplay whereotheotimeogapobetweenotheopointoofotimeowhenothe accusedoandotheodeceasedowereolastoseenoaliveoandothe deceasedoisofoundodeadoisosoosmallothatopossibilityoofoany personootherothanotheoaccusedobeingotheoauthoroofothe crimeobecomesoimpossible.oEvenoinosuchoaocaseotheocourts shouldolookoforosomeocorroboration.

28.oInoStateoofoU.P.ov.oSatisho[2005(3)oSCCo114]othis Courtoobservedo:o(SCCop.o123,oparao22) "22.oTheolast-seenotheoryocomesointooplayowhereotheotime-gapobetweenotheopointoofotimeowhenotheoaccusedoandothe deceasedowereolastoseenoaliveoandowhenotheodeceasedois foundodeadoisosoosmallothatopossibilityoofoanyopersonoother thanotheoaccusedobeingotheoauthoroofotheocrimeobecomes impossible. o It o would o be o difficult o in o some o cases o to positivelyoestablishothatotheodeceasedowasolastoseenowith theoaccusedowhenothereoisoaolongogapoandopossibilityoof otheropersonsocomingoinobetweenoexists.oInotheoabsenceoof anyootheropositiveoevidenceotooconcludeothatotheoaccused andotheodeceasedowereolastoseenotogether,oitowouldobe hazardousotoocomeotooaoconclusionoofoguiltoinothoseocases. Inothisocaseothereoisopositiveoevidenceothatotheodeceased andotheoaccusedowereoseenotogetherobyowitnessesoPWso3 ando5,oinoadditionotootheoevidenceoofoPWo2." (SeeoalsooBodhrajov.oStateoofoJ&K,o(2002(8)oSCCo45).)"

15.oAosimilaroviewowasoalsootakenoinoJaswantoGirov.oStateoof Punjab,o2006(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o202o:o2006(1)oApexoCriminal 700o:o[2005(12)oSCCo438].SUKHPREET KAUR

¶16Above being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that the trial court and the High Court were not justified in directing conviction of the appellant. He is acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds executed pursuant to the order granting bail shall stand discharged. o -n o9"ris#nanoandoRamasam$oandoot#ersoversusoStateoof Tamilnaduo20%&(%2)oSCCo2'(!owhereotheoti e.gapobetweenotheodeceased KlastoseenLoinotheoco pan*oofotheoaccusedoandohisodeathowaso'4oda*s,othe 3onGbleoSupre eoBourtoheldoasounder:.

¶21The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik and others v. State of Bihar, 1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 609 : (1994) Supp.(2) SCC 372, this Court held as follows : M)&.o%husotheoevidenceothatotheoappellantohadogoneoto Sitara oinotheoeveningoofo&4.<.&45=oandohadosta*edoin theonightoatotheohouseoofodeceasedoSitara oisover*osha!* andoinconclusive.oCvenoifoitoisoacceptedothatothe*owere thereoitowouldoatobestoa ountotoobeotheoevidenceoofothe appellants o having o been o seen o last o together o with o the deceased.otiutoitoisosettledolawothatotheoonl*ocircu stance ofolastoseenowillonotoco pleteotheochainoofocircu stances toorecordotheofindingothatoitoisoconsistentoonl*owithothe h*pothesisoofotheoguiltoofotheoaccusedoand,otherefore,ono convictionoonothatobasisoaloneocanobeofounded.M

¶22This Court in Bodhraj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir,

(2002)8 SCC 45, held that the last seen theory comes into play where time"gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together.

¶23There is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. As per prosecution story the deceased Manikandan was last seen on 4th April, 2004 at Vadakkumelur village during Panguni Uthiram Festival at Mariyamman Temple. The body of the deceased was taken from the borewell by the fire service personnel after more than seven days. There is no other positive material on record to show that the deceased was last seen together with the accused and intervening period of seven days there was nobody in contact with the deceased.

¶24In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 202 : (2005)12 SCC 438, this Court held that in absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "last seen together" even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed. -no9Ni)amoandoanr*oVersusoStateoofoRajast#ano20%5(&)oRCR (Criminal)o2'%3!owhereotheoti e.gapobetweenotheodeceasedoKlastoseenLoinothe co pan*oofotheoaccusedoandohisodeathowaso')oda*s,otheo3onGbleoSupre e Bourtoheldoasounder:.

¶14Courts below convicted the appellants on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that deceased was last seen alive with the appellants on 23.01.2001. Undoubtedly, "last seen theory" is an important link in the chain of circumstances that would point towards the guilt of the accused with some certainty. The "last I attest to the accuracy and seen theory" holds the courts to shift the burden of proof to the accusedoandotheoaccusedotooofferoaoreasonableoexplanationoasoto theocauseoofodeathoofotheodeceased.oItoisowell-settledobyothis Courtothatoitoisonotoprudentotoobaseotheoconvictionosolelyoono"last seenotheory".o"Lastoseenotheory"oshouldobeoappliedotakingointo considerationotheocaseoofotheoprosecutionoinoitsoentiretyoand keepingoinomindotheocircumstancesothatoprecedeoandofollowothe pointoofobeingosoolastoseen.

15.oElaboratingotheoprincipleoofo"lastoseenoalive"oinoStateoof Rajasthanov.oKashioRam,o2007(1)oRCRo(Criminal)o131o:o(2006) 12oSCCo254,othisoCourtoheldoasoundero:- "23.oItoisonotonecessaryotoomultiplyowithoauthorities.oThe principleoisowellosettled.oTheoprovisionsoofoSectiono106oof theoEvidenceoActoitselfoareounambiguousoandocategoricoin layingodownothatowhenoanyofactoisoespeciallyowithinothe knowledgeoofoaoperson,otheoburdenoofoprovingothatofactois upon o him. oThus, o if oa o person o is o last o seen o with o the deceased,oheomustoofferoanoexplanationoasotoohowoand whenoheopartedocompany.oHeomustofurnishoanoexplanation which o appears o to o the o court o to o be o probable o and satisfactory.oIfoheodoesosooheomustobeoheldotoohave dischargedohisoburden.oIfoheofailsotooofferoanoexplanation onotheobasisoofofactsowithinohisospecialoknowledge,ohe failsotoodischargeotheoburdenocastouponohimobyoSection 106o of o the o Evidence o Act. o In o a o case o resting o on circumstantialoevidenceoifotheoaccusedofailsotooofferoa reasonableoexplanationoinodischargeoofotheoburdenoplaced onohim,othatoitselfoprovidesoanoadditionalolinkoinotheochain ofocircumstancesoprovedoagainstohim.oSectiono106odoes notoshiftotheoburdenoofoproofoinoaocriminalotrial,owhichois alwaysouponotheoprosecution.oItolaysodownotheoruleothat whenotheoaccusedodoesonotothrowoanyolightouponofacts whichoareospeciallyowithinohisoknowledgeoandowhich couldonotosupportoanyotheoryoorohypothesisocompatible withohisoinnocence,otheocourtocanoconsiderohisofailureoto adduceoanyoexplanation,oasoanoadditionalolinkowhich completesotheochain.oTheoprincipleohasobeenosuccinctly statedoinoNainaoMohd.,oRe.o(AIRo1960oMadraso218)" The above judgment was relied upon and reiterated in Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal, (2015) 5 Scale 319.

¶16In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the courts below were right in invoking the "last seen theory." From the evidence discussed above, deceased"Manoj allegedly left in the truck DL" 1GA"5943 on 23.01.2001. The body of deceased"Manoj was recovered on 26.01.2001. The prosecution has contended the accused persons were last seen with the deceased but the accused have not offered any plausible, cogent explanation as to what has happened to Manoj. Be it noted, that only if the prosecution has succeeded in proving the facts by definite evidence that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused, a reasonable inference could be drawn against the accused and then only onus can be shifted on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

¶17During their questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused"appellants denied Manoj having travelled in their truck No. DL"1GA"5943. As noticed earlier, body of Manoj was recovered only on 26.01.2001 after three days. The gap between the time when Manoj is alleged to have left in the truck No. DL" 1GA"5943 and the recovery of the body is not so small, to draw an inference against the appellants. At this juncture, yet another aspect emerging from the evidence needs to be noted. From the statement made by Shahzad Khan (PW"4) the internal organ (penis) of the deceased was tied with rope and blood was oozing out from his nostrils. Maniya village, the place where the body of Manoj was recovered is alleged to be a notable place for prostitution where people from different areas come for enjoyment.

¶18In view of the time gap between Manoj left in the truck and the recovery of the body and also the place and circumstances in which the body was recovered, possibility of others intervening cannot be ruled out. In the absence of definite evidence that appellants and deceased were last seen together and when the time gap is long, it would be dangerous to come to the conclusion that the appellants are responsible for the murder of Manoj and are guilty of committing murder of Manoj. Where time gap is long it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the "last seen theory"; it is safer to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution. From the facts and evidence, we find no other corroborative piece of evidence corroborating the last seen theory.

¶19In case of circumstantial evidence, court has to examine the entire evidence in its entirety and ensure that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused. In the case at hand, neither the weapon of murder nor the money allegedly looted by the appellants or any other material was recovered from the possession of the appellants. There are many apparent lapses in the investigation and missing links: "

(i) Non"recovery of stolen money; (ii) The weapon from which abrasions were caused; (iii) False case lodged by PW"2 alleging that he was being robbed by some other miscreants;

(iv) Non"identification of the dead body and (v) Non" explanation as to how the deceased reached Maniya village and SUKHPREET KAUR injuries on his internal organ (penis). Thus we find many loopholesoinotheocaseoofotheoprosecution.oForoestablishingothe guilt o on o the o basis o of o the o circumstantial o evidence, o the circumstancesomustobeofirmlyoestablishedoandotheochainoof circumstancesomustobeocompletedofromotheofacts.oTheochainoof circumstantialoevidenceocannotobeosaidotoobeoconcludedoinoany mannerosoughtotoobeourgedobyotheoprosecution. Ino'AnjanoKumaroSarmao&oothersoversusoStateoofoAssamo2017(3) RCRo(Criminal)o386',owhereotheotime-gapobetweenotheodeceasedo"lastoseen" inotheocompanyoofotheoaccusedoandohisodeathowaso02odays,otheoHon'ble SupremeoCourtoheldoasounder:-

18.oTheocircumstanceoofolastoseenotogetherocannotobyoitselfoform theobasisoofoholdingotheoaccusedoguiltyoofotheooffence.oIn KanhaiyaoLalov.oStateoofoRajasthan,o2014(2)oRCRo(Criminal) 180o:o2014(2)oRecentoApexoJudgmentso(R.A.J.)o436o:o(2014)o4 SCCo715othisocourtoheldothat: "12.oTheocircumstanceoofolastoseenotogetherodoesonotoby itselfoandonecessarilyoleadotootheoinferenceothatoitowasothe accusedowhoocommittedotheocrime. Thereomustobeosomethingomoreoestablishingoconnectivity between o the o accused o and o the o crime. o Mere o non-explanationoonotheopartoofotheoappellant,oinoouroconsidered opinion,obyoitselfocannotoleadotooproofoofoguiltoagainstothe appellant. ..........

15.oTheotheoryoofolastoseen-theoappellantohavingogone withotheodeceasedoinotheomanneronoticedohereinbefore,ois theosingularopieceoofocircumstantialoevidenceoavailable againstohim.oTheoconvictionoofotheoappellantocannotobe maintainedomerelyoonosuspicion,ohoweverostrongoitomay be, o or o on o his o conduct. o These o facts o assume o further 2025.05.22 22:40 importanceoonoaccountoofoabsenceoofoproofoofomotive particularlyowhenoitoisoprovedothatothereowasocordial relationshipobetweenotheoaccusedoandotheodeceasedoforoa longotime.oTheofactosituationobearsogreatosimilarityotoothat inoMadhooSinghov.oStateoofoRajasthano[(2010)o15oSCC 588]." InoArjunoMarikov.oStateoofoBihar,o1994(2)oRCRo(Criminal)o609o: 1994oSuppo(2)oSCCo372othisocourtoheldothat: "31.oThusotheoevidenceothatotheoappellantohadogoneoto Sitaramoinotheoeveningoofo19-7-1985oandohadostayedoin theonightoatotheohouseoofodeceasedoSitaramoisoveryoshaky andoinconclusive.oEvenoifoitoisoacceptedothatotheyowere thereoitowouldoatobestoamountotoobeotheoevidenceoofothe appellants o having o been o seen o last o together o with o the deceased.oButoitoisosettledolawothatotheoonlyocircumstance ofolastoseenowillonotocompleteotheochainoofocircumstances toorecordotheofindingothatoitoisoconsistentoonlyowithothe hypothesisoofotheoguiltoofotheoaccusedoand,otherefore,ono convictionoonothatobasisoaloneocanobeofounded."

19.oThisoCourtoinoBharatov.oStateoofoM.P.,o2003(1)oRCR (Criminal)o637o:o(2003)o3oSCCo106,oheldothatotheofailureoofothe accusedotooofferoanyoexplanationoinohisostatementounderoSection 313,oCr.P.C.oaloneowasonotosufficientotooestablishotheocharge againstotheoaccused.oInotheofactsoofotheopresentocase,otheoHigh Courtocommittedoanoerroroinoholdingothatoinotheoabsenceoofoany satisfactoryoexplanationobyotheoaccusedotheopresumptionoofoguilt ofotheoAccusedostoodoun-rebuttedoandothusotheoAppellantsowere liableotoobeoconvicted.

20.oMr.oR.oVenkataramanioreliedouponoDeonandanoMishraov. StateoofoBihar,o(1955)o2oSCRo570oatop.582otoobuttressohis submissionothatotheocircumstanceoofolastoseenotogetherocoupled witholackoofoanyosatisfactoryoexplanationobyotheoaccusedoisoa veryostrongocircumstanceoonotheobasisoofowhichotheoaccusedocan beoconvicted.oItowasoheldobyothisoCourtoinotheoaboveojudgmentoas 2025.05.22 22:40 follows:- M-toisotrueothatoinoaocaseoofocircu stantialoevidenceonot onl*oshouldotheovariousolin!soinotheochainoofoevidenceobe clearl*oestablished,obutotheoco pletedochaino ustobeosuch asotooruleooutoaoreasonableoli!elihoodoofotheoinnocenceoof theoaccused.otiutoinoaocaseoli!eothisowhereotheovarious lin!soasostatedoaboveohaveobeenosatisfactoril*o adeoout andotheocircu stancesopointotootheoappellantoasothe probableoassailant,owithoreasonableodefinitenessoandoin pro@i it*otootheodeceasedoasoregardsoti eoandosituation, andoheooffersonooe@planation,owhichoifoaccepted,othough not o proved, o would o afford o a o reasonable o basis o for o a conclusion o on o the o entire o case o consistent o with o his innocence, o such o absence o of o e@planation o or o false e@planationowouldoitselfobeoanoadditionalolin!owhich co pletesotheochain. oEeoare,otherefore,oofotheoopinion thatothisoisoaocaseowhichosatisfiesotheostandardsore;uisite foroconvictionoonotheobasisoofocircu stantialoevidence.M

¶21It is clear from the above that in a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction. The other judgments on this point that are cited by Mr. Venkataramani do not take a different view and, thus, need not be adverted to. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 458 : 2007(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 101 : (2007) 3 SCC 755 in support of his submission that the circumstance of last seen together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possibility of any other persons meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening SUKHPREET KAUR period. It was held in the above judgment as under:" "34.oFromotheoprincipleolaidodownobyothisoCourt,othe circumstanceoofolastoseenotogetherowouldonormallyobe takenointooconsiderationoforofindingotheoaccusedoguiltyoof theooffenceochargedowithowhenoitoisoestablishedobyothe prosecutionothatotheotimeogapobetweenotheopointoofotime whenotheoaccusedoandotheodeceasedowereofoundotogether aliveoandowhenotheodeceasedowasofoundodeadoisosoosmall that o possibility o ofo any o other o person o being o with o the deceasedocouldocompletelyobeoruledoout.oTheotimeogap betweenotheoaccusedopersonsoseenoinotheocompanyoofothe deceasedoandotheodetectionoofotheocrimeowouldobeoa materialoconsiderationoforoappreciationoofotheoevidence andoplacingorelianceoonoitoasoaocircumstanceoagainstothe accused.oBut,oinoallocases,oitocannotobeosaidothatothe evidenceoofolastoseenotogetheroisotoobeorejectedomerely becauseotheotimeogapobetweenotheoaccusedopersonsoand theodeceasedolastoseenotogetheroandotheocrimeocomingoto lightoisoaftero(sicoof)oaoconsiderableolongoduration.oThere canobeonoofixedoorostraitjacketoformulaoforotheodurationoof timeogapoinothisoregardoandoitowouldodependouponothe evidenceoledobyotheoprosecutionotooremoveotheopossibility of o any o other o person o meeting o the o deceased o in o the interveningoperiod,othatoisotoosay,oifotheoprosecutionoisoable tooleadosuchoanoevidenceothatolikelihoodoofoanyoperson otherothanotheoaccused,obeingotheoauthoroofotheocrime, becomesoimpossible,othenotheoevidenceoofocircumstance ofolastoseenotogether,oalthoughothereoisolongodurationoof time,ocanobeoconsideredoasooneoofotheocircumstancesoin theochainoofocircumstancesotooproveotheoguiltoagainstosuch accusedopersons.oHence,oifotheoprosecutionoprovesothatoin theolightoofotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheocase,othere was o no o possibility o of o any o other o person o meeting o or approachingotheodeceasedoatotheoplaceoofoincidentoor beforeotheocommissionoofotheocrime,oinotheointervening period,otheoproofoofolastoseenotogetherowouldobeorelevant evidence.oForoinstance,oifoitocanobeodemonstratedoby showingothatotheoaccusedopersonsowereoinoexclusive possessionoofotheoplaceowhereotheoincidentooccurredoor whereotheyowereolastoseenotogetherowithotheodeceased,oand thereowasonoopossibilityoofoanyointrusionotoothatoplaceoby anyothirdoparty,othenoaorelativelyowiderotimeogapowould notoaffectotheoprosecutionocase." Asoweohaveoheldothatotheootherocircumstancesoreliedouponobyothe integrity of this document prosecutionoareonotoprovedoandothatotheocircumstancesoofolast seen together along with the absence of satisfactory explanation are not sufficient for convicting the accused. Therefore the findings recorded in the above judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶22Due to the lack of chain of circumstances which lead to the only hypothesis of guilt against the accused, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the Appellants of the charges of Section 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. The Appellants are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. -no9-ines#o"umaroversusoT#eoStateoofo.ar$anao2023(3)oRCR (Criminal)o%3, whereotheoti e.gapobetweenotheodeceasedoKlastoseenLoinothe co pan*oofotheoaccusedoandohisodeathowaso'/oda*s,otheo3onGbleoSupre e Bourtoheldoasounder:.

¶12The evidence of last seen becomes an extremely important piece of evidence in a case of circumstantial evidence, particularly when there is a close proximity of time between when the accused was last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the body of the deceased, or in this case the time of the death of the deceased. This does not mean that in cases where there is a long gap between the time of last seen and the death of the deceased the last seen evidence loses its value. It would not, but then a very heavy burden is placed upon the prosecution to prove that during this period of last seen and discovery of the body of the deceased or the time of the death of the deceased, no other person but the accused could have had an access to the deceased. The circumstances of last seen 2025.05.22 22:40 together in the present case by itself cannot form the basis of guilt (See: Anjan Kumar Sarma & Others v. State of Assam

(2017) 14 SCC 359 "para 19). The circumstances of last seen together does not by itself lead to an irrevocable conclusion that it is the accused who had committed the crime. The prosecution must come out with something more to establish this connectivity with the accused and the crime committed. Particularly, in the present case when there is no close proximity between circumstances of last seen together and the approximate time of death, the evidence of last seen becomes weak (See: " Malleshappa v. State of Karnataka

(2007) 13 SCC 399 " para 23). In Nizam & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 1 SCC 550 where the time gap between the last seen together and the discovery of the body of the deceased was long, it was held that during this period the possibility of some other interventions could not be ruled out. Where time gap between the last seen and time of death is long enough, as in the present case, then it would be dangerous to come to the conclusion that the accused is responsible for the murder. In such cases it is unsafe to base conviction on the "last seen theory" and it would be safer to look for corroboration from other circumstance and evidence which have been adduced by the prosecution. The other circumstances here is the so called discovery, and most of these, as we have already discussed, fail to meet the requirement of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As per the post"mortem which was conducted on 12.05.2000 at 4:15 P.M, the death was 48 hours prior to the post mortem, which means it was before 4:00 P.M. on 10.05.2000. Even assuming that the death has taken place, a day earlier i.e.

09.05.2000, still there is a long gap between the last seen which is at 7:00 pm on 08.05.2000 and the morning of 09.05.2000. In the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755, where in the evidence of last seen, the recovery of dead body was only a few hours before "last seen", it was not considered The same was again emphasized by this Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 14 SCC 401 where it was emphasized that the time between victim last seen alive and the discovery of the body of the deceased has to be of close proximity, so that any other person being the author of the crime cannot be ruled out. In this case, even if we take the time between the last seen and the approximate time of death as per the post"mortem, which would go beyond 48 hours preceding the time of post"mortem and the time of death can be stretched to the morning of May 9, 2000, which still begs an explanation from the prosecution as to the time gap, as the deceased was last seen with the two accused on 08.05.2000 at 7:00 P.M. The trial court as well as the High Court have lost sight of the vital aspect of the matter. Both the Courts have relied on Section 106 of the Act and have held that since the accused was last seen with the deceased and he has not been able to give any reasonable explanation of his presence with the deceased in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 it has to be read against the accused and therefore it has to be counted as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. In present case in the findings of the trial court and High Court this appears to be the most important aspect which weighed with the trial court as well as the High Court in establishing the guilt of the accused. We are, however, afraid this is a complete misreading of Section 106 of the Act. Section 101 of the Act places the burden of proof on the prosecution. It reads as under :"

¶101Burden of proof " Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 106 of the Act creates an exception to Section 101 and reads as under :"

¶106Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge " When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Section 106 of the Act is an exception to the rule which is Section 101 of the Act, and it comes into play only in a limited sense where the evidence is of a nature which is especially within the knowledge of that person and then the burden of proving that fact shifts upon him that person. The burden of proof is always with the prosecution. It is the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 106 of the Act does not alter that position. It only places burden for disclosure of a fact on the establishment of certain circumstances. We have no reason to doubt the testimony of PW"10 (Karanjit Singh), the sole witness of last seen. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the appellant was questioned about being in the company of the deceased on 08.05.2000 along with co"accused Mange Ram, no explanation was given by the appellant about his whereabouts. It is for this reason that it has been held that the accused has not been able to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Act and therefore this has to be read as an additional link in the chain of evidence against the appellant. To our mind, however, Section 106 of the Act would not even come to play here under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶13What has to be kept in mind is that Section 106 of the Act, only comes into play when the other facts have been established by the prosecution. In this case when the evidence of last seen itself is on a weak footing, considering the long gap of time between last seen by PW"10 and the time of death of the deceased, Section 106 of the Act would not be applicable under the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case. -no9R*oSreenivasaoversusoStateoofo"arnatakao(Criminalo+//eal No*85(oofo20%%odetiidedoonoti *0(*20233! whereotheoti e.gapobetweenothe deceasedoKlastoseenLoinotheoco pan*oofotheoaccusedoandohisodeathowaso ore thano'(oda*s,otheo3onGbleoSupre eoBourtoheldoasounder:.

¶17In the present case, given that there is no definitive evidence of last seen as also the fact that there is a long time"gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body, and in the absence of other corroborative pieces of evidence, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete that the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant. In Laxman Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh,

(2023) 6 SCC 399, we had, upon considering Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SCC 750, held that `... In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other theory of the crime.' It would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on such evidence, where the chain is clearly incomplete. That apart, the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused and when doubts emanate, the benefit accrues to the accused, and not the prosecution. Reference can be made to Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 INSC 749 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038. -no9Sanja$oversusoStateoofo1ttaro2rades#o2025oINSCo3%'3!o where theoti e.gapobetweenotheodeceasedoKlastoseenLoinotheoco pan*oofothe accusedoandohisodeathowaso08odays,otheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoheldoas under:-

32.oTheoonlyocircumstanceoremainingoagainstotheoaccusedothat canobeobelieved,oisotheolast-seenotheory.oPW1,oPW2,oPW3oand PW6oandoPW7ohaveodeposedothatotheyosawotheoaccusedolastly withotheodeceased.oItoisosettledolaw,ohowever,othatoconviction cannotobeosolelyobasedoonolast-seenotheory.oThisoCourtoin Krishnanov.oStateoofoT.N.,o(2014)o12oSCCo279ohadoobservedo: "21. o The o conviction o cannot o be o based o only o on o the circumstanceoofolastoseenotogetherowithotheodeceased.oIn ArjunoMarikov.oStateoofoBiharo[1994oSuppo(2)oSCCo372o: 1994oSCCo(Cri)o1551]othisoCourtoheldoasofollows:o(SCC p.o385,oparao31) "31.oThusotheoevidenceothatotheoAppellantohadogoneoto Sitaramoinotheoeveningoofo19-7-1985oandohadostayedoin theonightoatotheohouseoofodeceasedoSitaramoisoveryoshaky andoinconclusive.oEvenoifoitoisoacceptedothatotheyowere thereoitowouldoatobestoamountotoobeotheoevidenceoofothe appellants o having o been o seen o last o together o with o the deceased.oButoitoisosettledolawothatotheoonlyocircumstance ofolastoseenowillonotocompleteotheochainoofocircumstances toorecordotheofindingothatoitoisoconsistentoonlyowithothe hypothesisoofotheoguiltoofotheoaccusedoand,otherefore,ono convictionoonothatobasisoaloneocanobeofounded."

24.oInoJaswantoGirov.oStateoofoPunjabo[(2005)o12oSCCo438 :o(2006)o1oSCCo(Cri)o579]othisoCourtoheldothatoinothe absenceoofoanyootherolinksoinotheochainoofocircumstantial evidence,otheoAppellantocannotobeoconvictedosolelyobased ono"lastoseenotogether"oevenoifoversionoofotheoprosecution witnessoinothisoregardoisobelieved." (Emphasisosupplied)

33.oWeomustoalsooclarifyothatoevenotheolast-seenotheoryoagainst theoaccused-appellantoisonotofreeofromosuspicion.oInoherocross-examination,oPW7,oanoindependentowitness,owhoohasobeenorelied uponoforothisocircumstance,oadmitsothatosheohadonototoldotheSUKHPREET KAUR I.O.-oPW8,oonotheofirstoinstance,othatosheohadoseenotheoaccused leavingotheomarriageohallowithotheodeceased.oTheoreasonoforothis omissionoatotheofirstoinstanceoremainsounexplained.

¶16Comingobackotootheofactsoofotheoinstantocase,oasoperothe prosecutionocase,otheodeceasedowaso"lastoseen"oinotheocompanyoofothe accusedopersonsoono22.01.2001.oHowever,otheoFIRocameotoobeoregisteredoat theoinstanceoofotheocomplainant-BaljitoSingho(PW-3)oonlyoono31.01.2001. Thereafter,oBhimoSingh/PW-4-fatheroofotheodeceasedomadeoaostatementounder Sectiono161oCr.P.C.obeforeotheoinvestigatingoagencyoono05.02.2001oregarding theodeceasedohavingobeeno"lastoseen"oinotheocompanyoofotheoaccusedoon

22.01.2001,oSamiroKhano@oSonuo(PW-6)ogotorecordedohisostatementounder Sectiono161oCr.P.C.oono03.02.2011oregardingohavingo"lastoseen"otheodeceased inotheocompanyoofotheoaccusedoono22.01.2001.oTheobodyowasodiscoveredoon

09.02.2001 o after o which o the o statement o of o PW-5/Nachhatar o Singh o was recordedounderoSectiono161oCr.P.C.ooono11.01.2001oregardingoheohavingo"last seen"otheodeceasedoinotheocompanyoofotheoaccusedoono22.01.2021oato8.30 p.m.

¶17Quiteoapparently,otheotimeogapobetweenootheodeceasedohaving beeno"lastoseen"oinotheocompanyoofotheoaccusedoisoapproximatelyo17odaysoi.e.

22.01.2001otoo09.02.2001.ooFurther,othereoisonooplausibleoexplanationoasoto whyocomplainant-BaljitoSingho(PW-3),otheobrotheroofotheodeceasedoandoBhim Singho(PW-4),otheofatheroofotheodeceasedowouldochoseotookeepoquiteoforo09-SUKHPREET KAUR 10odaysobeforeogettingoregisteredotheoFIR.ooSimilarly,oPW-5/NachhataroSingh whooisoalsooaorelativeoofotheodeceasedoonlyogotohisostatementorecordedoon

11.02.2001owhereasoSamiroKhano@oSonuogotorecordedohisostatementoon

03.02.2001.ooTherefore,otheiroevidenceoisotoobeotakenowithoaopinchoofosaltoin theoattendingofactsoandocircumstances.

18.o Theorecoveryoofoaowristowatcho(Ex.P-10)oandobankopassobook (Ex.P-13)obothobelongingotootheodeceasedohaveobeenoshownotoohaveobeen recoveredofromoSubaoSingh.o oThisoevidence,oevenoifotakenotoobeocorrect alongwithotheoevidenceoofo"lastoseen"oisoinsufficientotooaffixotheoguiltoofothe accused.o oBeothatoasoitomay,oSubaoSinghohasosinceoexpiredoduringothe pendencyoofotheoinstantoappeal.oTherefore,oaoconnectedoappealobearing No.CRA-D-754-DB-2003ofiledobyohimo(SubaoSingh)ostoodoabatedovideoorder datedo07.01.2020opassedobyothisoCourt.

¶19In o view o of o the o aforementioned o facts o and o circumstances alongwithotheolawoasolaidodownobyotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourt,oitoisoapparent thatotheogapobetweenotheodeceasedo"lastoseen"oinotheocompanyoofotheoaccused andotheorecoveryoofotheobodyoisoapproximatelyo17odaysoandoitocannotobeosaid byoanyostretchoofoimaginationothatothereocouldonotohaveobeenoanyoother intervening o person/persons o who o may o have o committed o the o offence o in question.oBeothatoasoitomay,o"lastoseen"oevidenceoinotheoabsenceoofoanyoother substantiveoevidenceoinoitselfoisoinsufficientotooconvictotheoaccused.ooThus,oit cannotobeoheldothatotheochainoofocircumstantialoevidenceounerringlyopoints

20.o The oup-shot o of o the oaforementioned o discussion o iso that o the prosecutionohasonotoprovedoitsocaseoagainstotheoaccusedobeyondoreasonable doubt.o o oTherefore,oweofindomeritoinotheoinstantoappeal.oTheoimpugned judgment o dated o 10.12.2003 o passed o by o theoAdditional o Sessions o Judge, Sangruroisosetoasideoandotheoaccusedoisoacquittedoofotheochargesoframed againstohim.o

21.o Theopendingoapplications,oifoany,oshallostandsodisposedoof accordingly. oooooo(oGURVINDERoSINGHoGILL) ooooJUDGE

22.05.2025 ooooooooooo (oJASJIToSINGHoBEDI) sukhpreet oo oJUDGE Whetherospeaking/reasoned :oYes/No Whetheroreportable :ooYes/No