‘May be true’ vs ‘must be true’: Supreme Court rejects last-seen theory, acquits two in 2013 Karnataka murder case

SC underscores high threshold for criminal conviction

Reinforcing settled criminal law principles, the Supreme Court said that suspicion, even if strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court reiterated that the gap between possibility and certainty must be bridged with credible evidence. Where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail, it said.

Case background: Missing woman, charred remains

The victim was last seen in Mudhol on March 23, 2013, after visiting relatives and local shops. A missing complaint was filed on March 25. On March 27, her partially burnt skeletal remains were discovered in a forest area.

A subsequent complaint lodged on April 3, 2013, alleged that the victim’s brother and others had abducted and murdered her over a Rs 20 lakh dispute and gold jewellery. The trial court convicted all the accused, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction in December 2021.

Reliance on circumstantial evidence questioned

• The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen together” theory, alleged recoveries of material objects, and motive linked to a financial dispute.
• However, it found that these circumstances did not form a complete and unbroken chain.
• The apex court cautioned against over-reliance on the “last seen together” doctrine.
• The circumstance of ‘last seen together’ does not, by itself, necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was the accused who committed the crime, the Supreme Court said, adding that there must be something more to “establish the connectivity between the accused and the crime”.
• It held that such evidence must be supported by additional corroborative material, which was lacking in the present case.
• While acknowledging a financial dispute between the deceased and her brother, the Supreme Court found no such motive against the appellants “to eliminate the deceased”.
• This weakened the prosecution’s attempt to establish their role as accomplices.

No independent recovery

• The bench also expressed concern over the manner in which confessional statements and recoveries were handled.
• Confessional statements were treated as evidence despite legal restrictions.
• No independent recovery was shown specifically at the instance of the appellants.
• This diluted the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case.
• Reiterating the principles governing circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court held that it would be too risky to reach such a conclusion “solely on this piece of circumstance.”
• Every link in the chain must be firmly established and must exclude every hypothesis except guilt, it said.
• Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions of the two appellants, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.