PADMAN BIBHAR versus STATE OF ODISHA

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1116 · Decided: 21-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KAROL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1116 : 2025 INSC 751
Padman Bibhar 
v. 
State of Odisha
(Criminal Appeal No. 2748 of 2025)
21 May 2025
[Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether appellant can be convicted only on the basis of evidence 
on ‘last seen together’.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial 
evidence – Last seen theory – Victim-deceased along with 
PW-1, PW-2 and appellant-accused went to a river to take 
bath – From there, the appellant/accused and the deceased 
went to cashew field – The appellant and the deceased did 
not return for long time, however, PW-1 and PW-2 returned 
to the village – On the next day, PW-3 (father of deceased) 
went to the riverside in search of his son and found his 
dead body floating in the river – PW-3 lodged FIR alleging 
that the appellant killed his son – Trial Court based on ‘last 
seen together’ and recovery of weapon together with motive 
held that chain of circumstantial evidence is completed and 
convicted the appellant – High court affirmed – Correctness:
Held: The present is a case where except for the evidence of ‘last 
seen together’ there is no other incriminating material against the 
appellant – The evidence of motive does not satisfy this court to be 
an adverse circumstance against the appellant inasmuch as if the 
appellant has any doubt about his wife’s chastity, he would have 
caused injury or harm to his wife rather than to wife’s cousin with 
whom he had no animosity – Moreover, the so-called weapon of 
the offence i.e. the stone has not been recovered at his instance 
nor there is any memorandum statement of the appellant – The 
nature of circumstantial evidence available against the appellant 
though raises doubt that he may have committed murder but 
the same is not so conclusive that he can be convicted only on 
the basis of evidence on ‘last seen together’ – Thus, impugned 
judgment is set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 19, 22, 23, 25]
* Author
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
1117
Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha
Circumstantial Evidence – Prosecution is obliged to prove 
each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so 
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that 
within all human probabilities, crime was committed by the 
accused and none else – Discussed. [Paras 10-12]
Circumstantial Evidence – ‘Last seen together’ – A weak piece 
of evidence – Without any other corroborative evidence – Not 
sufficient to convict u/s.302 – Discussed. [Paras 20, 21]
Criminal Trial – Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute 
the proof – Conviction is not permissible only on the basis 
of the suspicion – Discussed. [Para 24]
Case Law Cited
Ramanand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [1981] 2 SCR 444 : 
(1981) 1 SCC 511; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of 
Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Kanhaiya 
Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2014] 3 SCR 744 : (2014) 4 SCC 715; 
Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh [2016] 2 SCR 599 : 
(2016) 12 SCC 251; Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam [2013] 3 SCR 
830 : AIR 2013 SC 3817 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Last seen theory; Circumstantial evidence; Murder; Motive; 
Recovery of weapon.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2748 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2024 of the High Court 
of Orissa at Cuttack in CRLA No. 358 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shyam Manohar, Ms. Manju Jetley.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Shovan Mishra, Bipasa Tripathy.
1118
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Leave granted.
2.	
This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned 
judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the High Court of 
Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2019, whereby the 
High Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by 
the Trial Court convicting the appellant for committing the offences 
under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 18601 and 
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine 
of Rs 10,000/- and imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of 
Rs. 5,000/- respectively for each of the offence. 
THE PROSECUTION CASE:
3.	
The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 11 a.m. on 04.04.2016, 
informant’s son Akash Garadia2 along with Budhadeba Garadia(PW-1) 
and Susanta Kusulia(PW-

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