Court Overturns Lower Court's Conviction Due to Lack of Conclusive Evidence and Erroneous Application of "Last Seen" Doctrine
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted Naresh Kumar Sahu, who was previously convicted by the trial court for the murder of Kamal Dhruv under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, set aside the conviction on the grounds of insufficient circumstantial evidence and improper application of the "last seen together" doctrine.
The prosecution's case heavily relied on circumstantial evidence, claiming that the deceased was last heard by his wife, Durga Dhruv (PW-2), to be in the company of the appellant, Naresh Kumar Sahu, and others. However, the court found that no witness had actually seen the deceased with the appellant immediately prior to the incident, which is crucial for the "last seen together" doctrine to apply.
The court emphasized that the "last heard" evidence provided by PW-2, which indicated a telephonic conversation where the deceased mentioned his presence with the appellant and others, could not substitute the requirement of direct evidence needed for the "last seen together" doctrine. The absence of a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the appellant's guilt led the court to extend the benefit of doubt to Sahu.
Moreover, the court noted the inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, particularly the lack of immediate identification of the appellant in the FIR, which was registered against unknown persons. The court highlighted that the alleged gestures by the deceased towards the appellant and others were speculative and did not conclusively point to Sahu's guilt.
Citing the principles established in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that excludes every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The prosecution's failure to establish a motive further weakened their case.
The judgment underscores the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof. As a result, Naresh Kumar Sahu has been acquitted of all charges, and the court ordered his immediate release unless required in connection with any other case. This decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring convictions are based on solid evidence rather than conjecture.
Bottom line:-
Circumstantial evidence - Conviction cannot be based solely on "last heard" evidence or speculative inferences from ambiguous gestures attributed to the deceased. Proof of motive, though not indispensable, assumes significance where circumstantial evidence is weak and inconclusive.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Section 302, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(2)(v), Indian Evidence Act Section 3, Code of Criminal Procedure Section 437A
Naresh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2941337
