RAMBRAKSH @ JALIM versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 12-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 599 
RAMBRAKSH \a! JALIM 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATT!SGARH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 462of2016) 
MAY12,2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860- ss.302/34 ands. 201-Murder- Conviction 
on the basis of last seen theory - Sustainability of - On facts, 
· commission of murder of R - Prosecution case based upon 
circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory - Conviction and 
sentence of accused no. 2 u/s.302134 ands. 201, by courts below -
On appeal, held: Deceased was last seen alive in the company of 
accused on the fateful day and after seven days the bones and 
clothes allegedly belonging to deceased were noticed and thereafter, 
seized from the field - Seizure/recovery was not pursuant to any 
information furnished by the accused - Courts below convicted 
accused No.2 on the basis of last seen evidence, the correctness of 
which is doubtfiil - Further, there was failure of the prosecution to 
prove the death of R either homicidal or otherwise - There was 
improvement in the testimony of deceased's wife - No explanation 
by the prosecution for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint 
and registering the case.- Independent witnesses examined by the 
prosecution did not support the case - Thus, conviction and sentence 
of the accused no. 2 not sustainable and set aside - Evidence. 
Evidence - Last seen theory - Conviction on the basis of -
When - Held: Last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, 
between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were 
seen last alive and when deceased is found dead, is so small that 
possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator 
of the crime becomes tmpossible - To record conviction, last seen 
together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to 
complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the 
accused. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution case rests only upon the 
circumstantial evidence. The Sessions Judg~ as well as the High 
H 
599 
600 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
Court mainly relied upon the evidence of the wife of the deceased 
PW3 to hold the appellant guilty of the charges. PW3 in her 
complaint as well as her statement before the police has not told 
that she witnessed the occurrence during which both the accused 
assaulted her husband with lathi and Danda. Only in her testimony 
before the Court she claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. 
The High Court rightly ignored the improved part of her testimony 
and placed no reliance on it. [Para 7) [604-F; 605-D-E] 
1.2 The bones, articles, clothes and shoes allegedly 
belonging to R were recovered on 15.10.1992. Morgue given by 
PW 3 was recorded and the FIR came to be registered on 
15.10.1992. There is absolutely no explanation given by the 
prosecution for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and 
registering the case. The independent witnesses examined by 
the prosecution did not supported the case. As per last ~een theory 
projected by the prosecution the deceased was last seen alive in 
the company of the appellant on 7.10.1992 and after 7 days the 
bones and clothes allegedly belonging to the deceased came to 
be noticed and thereafter seized from the field. They were not 
seized/recovered pursuant to any information furnished by the 
accused. [Para 8) [605-F-G) 
1.3 The investigation officer seized the bones from the field 
and sent them for autopsy. PW6 in his report gave an account of 
the bones forming the skeleton. Thereafter they were sent to 
Medical College, and PWlO-doctor examined them and gave 
opinion stating that the bones are of human origin and they 
belonged to male aged between 25 to 40 years and there were no 
marks of injury in any of the bones and the cause of death cannot 
be said and the death could have occurred within 6 months prior 
to the date of examination. The Investigation Officer did not take 
any attempt to conduct DNA analysis of bones to prove that the 
skeleton seized was that of R. The prosecution has failed to prove 
the death of R either homicidal or otherwise. [Para 9) [605-H; 
606-A-C] 
1.4 A conviction cannot be recorded against the accused 
merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the 
deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the 
only circumstance oflast seen together. Normally, last seen theory 
RAMBRAKSH @ JAL!M v. STATE OF CHHATTlSGARH 
c

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