In a case based on circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot be sustained unless every circumstance forms a complete and reliable chain pointing only towards guilt; weak “last seen” evidence, doubtful extra-judicial confession, and defective recoveries are insufficient to sustain conviction for murder.

on

Facts

The deceased, son of the de-facto complainant, went missing on the evening of 30.10.2012 after leaving with the accused persons. His body was discovered the next morning in a field. The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, namely: the “last seen together” theory, extra-judicial confession, recovery of alleged weapons and motorcycle, serological evidence, and oral testimony.

The Trial Court convicted the accused for murder, which conviction was affirmed by the High Court. Two of the accused approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed

Whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances sufficient to sustain conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court closely examined the “last seen together” theory. While PW1 stated that the deceased left with the accused at about 4 PM and PW14 saw them together at about 5 PM, the post-mortem report only indicated that “24 hours had not passed” since death. The Court held that the time gap between the deceased being last seen and the probable time of death was too wide to draw an adverse inference. Reliance was placed on State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran. (Paras 7–9)

(b) The Court found the testimony of PW11, who allegedly saw the accused and deceased drinking together, unreliable. Her inability to explain her presence at the spot or identify the house where she worked rendered her testimony doubtful. (Para 6)

(c) On extra-judicial confession, the Court held that the evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. PW8 spoke of a confession by A1 implicating all accused, whereas PW3, PW12, and PW14 referred only to an exculpatory statement blaming co-accused. The Court observed that such a statement “by its very nature is unreliable.” (Paras 10–11)

(d) The Court further noted that the alleged confession was made when the accused had been detained by a mob, thereby raising the possibility of duress and coercion. (Para 11)

(e) Examining the alleged recoveries under S.27 Evidence Act, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish concealment or exclusive knowledge by the accused. The seizure memos lacked clarity regarding the exact place of recovery and the statements of the accused did not disclose concealment in the manner required under law. (Paras 12–15)

(f) The Court also found the recovery of the motorcycle unreliable due to discrepancies in evidence and absence of proof linking the vehicle to the deceased. (Para 16)

(g) The testimony of PW4, projected as another incriminating circumstance, was also discarded since she admitted in cross-examination that she had been threatened to depose falsely. (Para 17)

(h) The Court finally noted the absence of any established motive, observing that though motive is not always essential, its absence assumes significance where the chain of circumstances itself is incomplete. (Para 17)

Held

The Supreme Court held that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution formed a complete and reliable chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused. The convictions were accordingly set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

Ratio

“The proximity of the death having occurred within a short time after the accused and the deceased were seen together is most relevant, for the said fact to be taken as an incriminating circumstance against the accused. When the time gap is large then there could be intervening circumstances, which snaps the link and prevents an adverse inference against the accused merely for the reason that the accused does not put forth an explanation as to when he parted company with the deceased.” (Para 7)

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 528
Decided on: 22 May 2026
Case Title: Papan Sarkar @ Pranab v. State of West Bengal
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Kumar, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.