ANJAN KUMAR SARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 991 · Decided: 23-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 991 
ANJAN KUMAR SARMA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 560 of 2014) 
MAY23,2017 
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.) 
Evidence - Last seen theory - Reliability of. when - Held: 
A 
B 
Circumstance of last seen together cannot by itself/arm the basis 
of holding the accused guilty of the offence - In a case where the c 
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 D 
conviction - On facts, other circumstances not being proved, onZv 
two circumstances against the accused that they were last seen 
together with the deceased and absence of any explanation 
forthcoming by the accused - Due to lack of chain of circumstances 
which lead to the only hypothesis of guilt against accused, the 
E 
judgment of the High Court convicting the appellants for offences 
u!ss. 302, 201 r!w s. 34 set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 
201 r!w s. 34. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof F 
for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step 
between moral certainty and the legal proof. At times it can be a 
case of "may be true." But there is a long mental distance 
between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides 
conjunctures from sure conclusions. It is settled law that 
inferences drawn by the court have to be on the basis of G 
established facts and not on conjectures. [Paras 15, 16)[1002-B-
C] 
Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa (1991) 3 SCC 27 : 
[1991] 2 SCR 298; Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam 
(2013) 12 SCC 406 : [2013] 3 SCR 830 - relied on. 
H 
991 
992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 The inference that was drawn by the High Court that 
the death was caused on 28.12.1992 within the time of 48 hours 
as mentioned in the post mortem report is not correct. The post 
mortem examination was conducted on 30.12.1992 at 12:00 noon 
and it was opined by PW-11 that the death occurred 24 to 48 
B hours prior to the time of post mortem examination. Even if the 
time is stretched to the maximum of 48 hours, the death was 
after 12:00 noon on 28.12.1992. The deceased was in the 
company of the accused till 9:00 pm on 27.12.1992. The 
inference drawn by the High Court that the accused have killed 
the deceased on 28.12.1992 in the night time and thrown the 
C body on the railway track is not on the basis of any proved facts. 
The trial court was right in holding that there is no evidence on 
record to show that the deceased was with the accused after 
12:00 noon on 28.12.1992.[Para 16][1002-D-F) 
1.3 The prosecution relied upon nine circumstances to 
D prove the charges against all the accused. PW-11 who conducted 
the Autopsy opined that the death of the victim was due to the 
ante mortem incised wound found on the skull which could have 
been caused by khukri. It is accepted that the recovery of the 
khukri was not supported by any independent witnesses. The 
prosecution also failed to prove that there were blood stains on 
E 
the said khukri. The blood stains found in the bathroom of the 
bungalow were sent for examination which resulted in a negative 
report. The above circumstances not being proved would leave 
only two circumstances against the accused which are that the 
accused were last seen together with the deceased and the 
F 
absence of any explanation forthcoming by the accused. [Para 
17)(1002-F-H; 1003-A) 
,, 
1.4 The circumstance of last seen together cannot by itself 
form the basis of holding the accused guilty of the offence. In a 
case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and 
G 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. [Paras. 18, 
H 21)(1003-B; 1004-G-H] 
ANJAN KUMAR SARMA v. STATE OF ASSAM 
993 
1.5 Due to the lack of chain of circumstances which lead A 
to the only hypothesis of guilt against the accused, the judgment 
of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.