Conviction cannot rest solely on “last seen” and inadmissible joint disclosures; absence of independent incriminating evidence against co-accused warrants acquittal.

on


Facts

Background of prosecution case

The deceased went missing on 23.03.2013 after being last seen in the company of her brother (A1). Subsequently, burnt skeletal remains were recovered from a forest area. Based on identification of articles and DNA evidence, the remains were linked to the deceased.

The prosecution alleged that A1, along with the appellants (A2 and A4), abducted, murdered, and burnt the body to destroy evidence. The motive attributed was financial dispute—A1 allegedly owed ₹20 lakhs and gold to the deceased.

The Trial Court convicted all accused under ss. 302, 364, 404, 201 r/w s. 34 IPC, relying on circumstantial evidence: last seen, recovery, and motive. The High Court affirmed conviction. The present appeals challenge the conviction of A2 and A4.

Issues Framed

Whether the High Court committed any error in affirming the conviction of the appellants based on circumstantial evidence.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) Legal standard for circumstantial evidence
The Court reiterated that circumstances must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except guilt. Reliance was placed on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra requiring that circumstances “should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved” (Para 31).

(b) Motive
The Court held that the alleged motive existed only against A1. The appellants “had nothing to do with the deceased” and “had no motive to eliminate the deceased” (Para 33).

(c) Last seen theory
The prosecution relied on PW-7, who stated that the appellants boarded the car in which the deceased was travelling. The Court accepted this circumstance arguendo, but emphasized:
“The circumstance of ‘last seen together’ does not by itself… lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime” (Para 43).

Further, conviction based solely on this would be “too risky” (Para 44), especially without corroboration.

(d) Discovery under s. 27 IEA
The Court found serious infirmities:
(i) Confessional statements (Exhs. 50–53) were hit by s. 25 IEA.
(ii) No independent discovery attributable to the appellants.
(iii) Recovery was primarily at the instance of A1, yet treated as joint disclosure—legally impermissible.

Thus, the alleged discovery did not connect the appellants to the crime.

(e) Role as accomplices
The Court analysed accomplice liability and held that mere presence or association is insufficient; there must be cogent evidence of participation. No such evidence existed.

Held

The conviction of the appellants was unsustainable due to incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence. The appeals were allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

Ratio

Conviction on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain linking each accused individually; mere “last seen” evidence without corroboration and absence of independent discovery under s. 27 IEA is insufficient to sustain conviction.

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 417
Decided on: Not specified in extract
Case Title: Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, J.