‘May be true’ vs ‘must be true’: Supreme Court rejects last-seen theory, acquits two in 2013 Karnataka murder case
The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, alleged recoveries of material objects, and motive linked to a financial dispute.
Circumstantial evidence must be supported by additional corroborative material, which was lacking in the present case, the Supreme Court held. (Image generated using AI)
Supreme Court news: Drawing a sharp line between suspicion and proof, the Supreme Court has acquitted two men in a 2013 murder case, holding that the prosecution’s case “may be true” but falls far short of the standard of “must be true” required for conviction.
A bench led by Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan was hearing an appeal filed by two men, Anand Jakkappa Pujari and Mahadev Sidram Hullolli, who had been convicted along with others for the abduction and murder of a woman in Karnataka.
Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan heard the matter on April 27.
“It will be too much for us to affirm the conviction of the appellants for a serious offence like murder solely relying on the circumstance of being last seen together. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case ‘may be true’ but it is not that of ‘must be true’, and there is a long distance to travel between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’,” the Supreme Court bench said on April 27.
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.
Story continues below this ad
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.
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.
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan heard the matter on April 27.