In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that an accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the 'last seen together' theory if he has raised a plausible alibi which the prosecution has failed to disprove. The court set aside the conviction of a husband who was earlier found guilty of murdering his wife, stating that there were no conclusive circumstances proving his guilt.
“The fact of absence of the accused at the time of occurrence having been categorically stated in the first intimation, we find the High Court's conclusion that it was his duty to establish the alibi is flawed,” the Court noted.
The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by Jagdish Gond, who had been convicted by the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of his wife. The Trial Court had earlier acquitted him and his in-laws, but this verdict was overturned by the High Court solely based on the theory that the husband was last seen with the wife and failed to prove his alibi.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks Detailed Reports from Centre and Bihar Government on Ganga River Encroachments
Case Background
The tragic incident occurred in January 2017, when the husband returned from work to find his wife lying lifeless on their cot. He immediately informed his parents and the local police. The police recorded the incident as a case of sudden and unnatural death under Section 174 of CrPC.
At the time of inquest, no suspicion was raised by any of the family members, including the deceased's father, who later filed an FIR on 03.02.2017, alleging foul play.
During the trial, eight witnesses were examined, including the investigating officer, the doctor who conducted the postmortem, and the deceased's relatives. The Trial Court acquitted all accused due to lack of conclusive evidence and absence of proof of homicide. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal for the husband, relying mainly on the last seen theory and dismissing his alibi for being unproven.
“Where two views are possible, the one taken by the Trial Court to acquit the accused, if found plausible, cannot be lightly upset by the Appellate Court,” the Supreme Court reiterated.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL on Fear of Coercive Action Over Sharing Kunal Kamra’s Comedy Clip
The medical evidence raised serious doubts. The postmortem showed a ligature mark only on the front side of the neck, which did not conclusively indicate death by strangulation. The doctor (PW-8) clarified that:
“The mark found on the body of deceased is caused by noose and mark of throttling has not been found. So, the death of deceased was homicidal or suicidal is the subject of investigation.”
This statement ruled out clear proof of homicide, which weakened the prosecution’s case further.
Additionally, the accused had informed the police on the very day of the incident that he was working at a cement factory during the time of death. This was recorded before the FIR and was not a post-facto alibi. Yet, the police failed to verify his presence at the factory, a critical lapse in the investigation.
The Supreme Court cited past precedents, including Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that suspicion cannot replace proof, and circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to guilt.
“A mere suspicion cannot lead to a finding of guilt, especially when there is not available a chain of circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the guilt of the accused in the alleged crime,” the Court observed.
Read Also:- "TASMAC Challenges ED Raid in Madras High Court, Says Officers Can't Act Above the Law"
While the FIR alleged dowry-related harassment, the prosecution failed to prove any cruelty or violence. Witnesses only stated that the deceased was often described as lazy or unwell, but there were no signs of physical abuse or prior injuries found on the body. Charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC thus lacked supporting evidence.
“We do not find a single circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused, leave alone, a chain of circumstances fully establishing the guilt of the accused and excluding every possible hypothesis, except that of guilt,” the Court concluded.
Restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court ruled:
“Having found absolutely no circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court which we set aside. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The accused shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.”
Case Title: Jagdish Gond Versus The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rishabh Sahu, D.A.G. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A.shukla, Adv.
