The Chhattisgarh High Court has emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence while applying the last seen theory in criminal cases. The Court ruled that a conviction cannot rest solely on the fact that the accused was last seen with the deceased, particularly when there is a significant time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the body.

“Conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, the court is required to look for some other corroborative piece of evidence,”
— Chhattisgarh High Court

Read Also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Halts 2024 Civil Judge Exam Pending Supreme Court’s Verdict on Advocacy Requirement

This decision came in Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2020, involving Kavilas, who had been convicted by the trial court for the rape and murder of Ansuiya Bai and for destroying evidence. The conviction was under Sections 302, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence included life imprisonment.

Background of the Case

The incident took place in village Ghatula, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. On July 28, 2018, the police found the dead body of Ansuiya Bai in her house. A local villager, Arvind Yadav, reported the matter, and a case under Section 174 of CrPC was initiated.

The autopsy conducted by Dr. Suraj Kumar Sahu, revealed signs of asphyxia due to compression of the nose and mouth, suggesting homicidal death. The doctor also found evidence of sexual assault before the death.

Read Also:- Chhattisgarh High Court Clarifies: Cheque Return Memo Infirmities Do Not Invalidate Cheque Dishonour Trials

According to the prosecution, Kavilas had visited the deceased’s house on July 27, 2018, where the two consumed alcohol. When the deceased allegedly resisted his advances, he reportedly smothered her with a bedsheet. The accused also allegedly stole ₹1650, destroyed her mobile phone, and threw the SIM and battery away.

The defense argued that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence and that there were no eye-witnesses. It was further stated that the witnesses who were claimed to have seen the accused with the deceased were unreliable and that none of the critical evidence had been conclusively proven.

“The prosecution has failed to establish a continuous chain of events that proves the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
— Counsel for the Appellant

Read Also:- Chhattisgarh High Court: Appellate Court Must Interfere When Evidence Is Ignored Unjustifiably

Three key witnesses, Sandhya Nag (PW-3), Anjana Chhati (PW-7), and Lalita Bai Markam (PW-9), were presented to support the theory that the accused was last seen with the deceased. However, none of them saw the actual crime being committed.

• Sandhya Nag stated she saw the accused with the deceased at around 10:30 AM.
• Lalita Bai Markam testified that she saw both together before going to work and that later the house was locked.
• Anjana Chhati, the deceased’s stepdaughter, mentioned a phone call where the accused spoke to her and confirmed that the deceased was intoxicated and would not be traveling.

However, the body was discovered the next day, creating a time gap of nearly 24 hours, weakening the theory that only the accused could have committed the crime.

“There is a huge time gap between the last seen and the death. The possibility of third-party involvement cannot be ruled out.”
— Chhattisgarh High Court

Additionally, the mobile SIM card and broken phone found at the scene were not conclusively proven to belong to the deceased. The prosecution failed to examine mobile company officials or provide certification for call records under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

The Court found that the trial court had erred in convicting the accused based merely on the last seen theory and without sufficient corroborative evidence. The statements of the key witnesses did not conclusively prove the involvement of the accused.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the accused, granting him the benefit of the doubt.

“Conviction of the appellant is not based on due appreciation of the evidence available on record. He is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
— Chhattisgarh High Court

Case Number: CRA No. 593 of 2020

Case Title:Kavilas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Date: 08/04/2025