Manoj @ Munna vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2013

MANOJ @ MUNNA … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated

11.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal

Appeal No.306/2008, whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and

sentence imposed by the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences

under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and sentenced him

to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous

imprisonment for 05 years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of

fine amounts, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and

03 months respectively.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by LOKESH ARORA Date: 2025.12.18 18:42:24 IST Reason:

1 “IPC”

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 1 of 14 A. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. According to the prosecution, on 07.06.2004, the appellant, along with five

co-accused, committed dacoity and, during its commission, caused the death of

Yuvraj Singh Patle. The accused were, therefore, charged under Sections 302,

302/34, 396, 201 and 120-B of the IPC for murder, dacoity with murder,

criminal conspiracy, and causing disappearance of evidence. It was further

alleged that on 06.06.2004, the appellant was last seen with the deceased. The

appellant had taken him on his motorcycle from Salhevara. The deceased was

subsequently found dead on the next day, i.e., 07.06.2004

3. The dead body of Yuvraj Singh Patle was sent for autopsy to Primary

Health Center, Gandai where Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW 13) vide Ex. P-20 found

the following injuries:

i) Burn injury found over body of 2-3 degree. ii) Body was decomposed. iii) Hairs were pilling off. iv) Swelling over stratum and penis. v) Two ligature marks over the neck. vi) Lacerated wound over right temporal region of 2 x 2 x 1 c.m. vii) Lacerated wound over right collar bone. viii) Both palms were burnt. ix) Burn injury over the legs were found.

According to Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW 13), the cause of death was shock and burn

injury and the death was homicidal in nature.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as

many as 26 witnesses. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where he denied the circumstances

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 2 of 14 appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime

in question.

5. The Trial Court, while acquitting the remaining five accused, convicted the

appellant by placing reliance on the testimonies of Bedram (PW-18), Chamru

Singh (PW-20) and D.S. Marko, Executive Magistrate (PW-22), particularly with

respect to the last seen theory. The Trial Court held that the appellant had

caused the death of the deceased while returning from the house of Mangal Patle

on a motorcycle. The medical evidence, according to the Trial Court, established

that attempts had been made to burn the body with the intention of destroying

the evidence. The Trial Court further found that the appellant had looted the

tractor after murdering the driver, Yuvraj Singh Patle, for the purpose of

arranging money. On this basis, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution

had successfully proved the motive and established a complete chain of

circumstantial evidence pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant.

6. The High Court in the impugned judgment affirmed the conviction and

sentence passed by the Trial Court on the basis of the last seen theory and the

fact that the appellant did not offer any explanation as to when he left the

company of the deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle. In absence of such explanation and

circumstance, the High Court held that only inference possible was that it was

the appellant who committed homicidal death amounting to murder of Yuvraj

Singh Patle and with a view to conceal the evidence of crime, the appellant burnt

the dead body of Yuvraj Singh Patle.

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 3 of 14

B. SUBMISSIONS

7. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant would submit that

since the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of

circumstances is not complete. The evidence adduced by the prosecution suffer

from infirmities and contradictions. It was submitted that a similar set of

evidence was rejected in respect of other five accused persons, but the same

evidence were relied upon against the appellant which has resulted in

discrimination against the appellant. Further, the depositions of Bedram (PW-

18) and Chamru Singh (PW-20) regarding the last seen theory are not reliable. It

was also submitted that the prosecution totally failed to prove the motive to

commit the murder of the deceased. Thus, learned Amicus Curiae argued that

since the chain of circumstances is not complete as against the appellant, the

appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submitted that the Trial Court

and the High Court, after careful examination of the evidence, rightly came to a

conclusion that the evidence of ‘last seen together’ has been duly proved which

along with other incriminating circumstances is sufficient to convict the

appellant.

9. The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.

C. ANALYSIS

10. The only question that arises for our consideration is — whether the Trial

Court and the High Court were correct in convicting the appellant solely on the

basis of the theory of last seen together?

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 4 of 14

11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the case of the prosecution is

based purely on circumstantial evidence in the form of motive and last seen

together, since there is lack of ocular version of the crime. The fact that the death

was homicidal in nature was duly proved by Dr. Ashish Sharma (PW-13) who

conducted the autopsy. Large number of injuries were found on the body of the

deceased and the cause of death was shock and burn injury. Thus, there is no

doubt on the aspect that the death of Yuvraj Singh Patle was homicidal in nature.

12. It is a well-established rule in criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial

evidence can be made the basis of conviction of an accused person if it is of such

a character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and

is consistent only with his guilt. The incriminating circumstances being used

against the accused must be such as to lead only to a hypothesis of guilt and

must exclude every other possibility of innocence of the accused and if the

circumstances proved against the accused, in a particular case, are consistent

with the innocence of the accused, he will be entitled to the benefit of doubt.

13. This Court in a landmark judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs.

State of Maharashtra2 laid down the five golden rules to be kept in mind while

appreciating circumstantial evidence. The same reads thus:

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao

2 (1984) 4 SCC 116

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 5 of 14 Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

(emphasis supplied)

14. Further, in the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. State of Gujarat3, this

Court held that while convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence,

there should remain no circumstance which aligns with the innocence of the

accused. The observations made by this Court read thus:

“7. It is well-established that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution, must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.”

(emphasis supplied)

3 (1978) 1 SCC 228

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 6 of 14

15. Having noted the principles governing a case based purely on

circumstantial evidence, we now proceed to discuss the evidence as put forth by

the prosecution in bringing home the charges against the appellant:

i) Motive - It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant needed money

to get his jeep back and for this purpose, the appellant looted the tractor by

killing the driver Yuvraj Singh Patle to arrange money. However, there is no

further evidence on record to prove that after looting the tractor and committing

the alleged murder of the deceased, the appellant has tried to sell the tractor for

arranging money. In fact, it was stated during the course of argument that the

tractor was recovered from some other place after one month of the incident.

Thus, in the absence of evidence that the appellant attempted to sell the tractor,

the theory of appellant trying to arrange money to get his jeep back is not

established.

ii) Last Seen Together Theory - In the present case, the prosecution has

examined Bedram (PW-18) and Chamru Singh (PW-20). It was the case of the

prosecution that the appellant took the deceased on the motorcycle and,

thereafter, the dead body of the deceased in injured condition was found. As per

the evidence of PW-18, the appellant and one of the accused Bhagwandas called

Yuvraj Singh Patle at Salhevara, thereafter they went to Banjari. After that,

Yuvraj Singh Patle was not found along with them and later his dead body was

found.

16. We now proceed to examine the evidence on record in the context of the

last seen theory. Bedram (PW-18) deposed that the appellant and co-accused

Bhagwandas had requested the deceased, Yuvraj Singh Patle, who was the driver

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 7 of 14 of the tractor, to take the tractor to Salhevara. Acting upon this request, PW-18

instructed the deceased and Chamru Singh (PW-20), to proceed to Salhevara

with the tractor.

17. Chamru Singh (PW-20) informed Bedram (PW-18) that after reaching

Salhevara, the deceased left him there on the request of the accused persons,

who asked him to remain behind. Thereafter, both, the appellant and

Bhagwandas, proceeded towards Banjari along with the deceased on the tractor,

stating that they were going to collect cable wire. However, none of them, neither

the deceased nor the appellant, returned with the tractor that night.

18. Chamru Singh (PW-20) further deposed that on 06.06.2004 he had

accompanied the deceased to Salhevara by tractor. Upon their arrival, they met

the appellant and Bhagwandas, who invited them for tea at Tihati Hotel.

Thereafter, both the accused informed him that they were proceeding to Banjari

with the deceased and the tractor to collect cable wire, and asked PW-20 to wait.

19. According to PW-20, before departing for Banjari, the appellant and the

deceased took him on the motorcycle to the house of one Mangal Patle and

instructed him to stay there for the night, assuring that they would return

shortly. The witness waited the entire night, but neither the deceased nor the

accused came back.

20. On the following day, PW-20 waited until around 2:00 p.m. When neither

the accused nor the deceased returned, he travelled back to his village

Rengakhar by bus, where he met Bedram (PW-18) and narrated the entire

sequence of events. Thereafter, both PW-18 and PW-20 undertook a search for

the tractor and the deceased at Banjari, but found that no cable laying work was

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 8 of 14 underway, and neither the deceased nor the tractor could be traced even on the

next day.

21. Further, as per the evidence of D.S. Marko, Executive Magistrate (PW-22),

present appellant was placed for identification inside the jail and he was

identified by the witnesses. Thus, in the present case, factum of identification

and Dok identification have been well established by Bedram (PW-18) and

Chamru Singh (PW-20).

22. Thus, from the testimonies of Bedram (PW-18) and Chamru Singh (PW-

20), the prosecution has been able to prove that deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle was

last seen alive in the company of the appellant and co-accused Bhagwandas at

Salhevara on the evening of 06.06.2004. The accused persons took the deceased

along with them towards Banjari on the pretext of fetching cable wires, after

leaving Chamru Singh (PW-20) behind at the house of Mangal Patle. Thereafter,

Yuvraj Singh Patle was never seen alive again, and his dead body was

subsequently recovered.

23. Keeping in view the above-stated testimonies, the crucial question is —

whether the evidence of last seen together is sufficient enough to convict the

appellant in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence?

24. The doctrine of last seen rests on the logical presumption that where an

individual is last seen alive in the close company of an accused, and is soon

thereafter found dead, the accused must reasonably account for the

circumstances in which they parted ways, as such facts fall particularly within

his knowledge. Thus, it rests on the presumption that human behavior follows

natural probabilities, and, hence, the person who was last seen with the

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 9 of 14 deceased must be able to explain the facts that resulted in the subsequent death

of the deceased.

25. Recently in the case of Padman Bibhar vs. State of Odisha4, this Court,

speaking through one of us (Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.), while acquitting the

accused of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC held that the

conviction cannot be sustained against the accused merely on the ground that

the accused was last seen with the deceased.

26. In Rambraksh vs. State of Chhattisgarh5, this Court observed that the

last seen theory applies only when the time gap between the last seen point and

the discovery of the death is so small that no one else could have committed the

crime. Even then, this circumstance alone is insufficient and the prosecution

must establish a complete chain of circumstances proving the accused’s guilt.

In the said decision, this Court held as under:

“12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.” (emphasis applied)

4 2025 INSC 751 5 (2016) 12 SCC 251

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 10 of 14

27. Further this Court in the case of Krishnan alias Ramasamy and Others

vs. State of Tamil Nadu6 while relying on its judgment in Arjun

Marik vs. State of Bihar7 observed as follows:

“21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1551] this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 385, para 31) “31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded.””

(emphasis supplied)

28. In Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan8, this Court held that evidence

on last seen together is a weak evidence and conviction only on the basis of last

seen together without there being any other corroborative evidence against the

accused will not be sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Sections

302 and 201 of the IPC.

29. Another circumstance that the High Court took into consideration against

the appellant was that the present appellant has not offered any explanation

about when he left the company of the deceased Yuvraj Singh Patle and in

absence of such explanation and circumstance, inference would be possible that

the present appellant has committed homicidal death amounting to murder of

6 (2014) 12 SCC 279 7 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 8 (2014) 4 SCC 715

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 11 of 14 Yuvraj Singh Patle and with a view to conceal the evidence of crime, he burnt his

dead body.

30. It is a settled principle that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18729

clearly provides that when a fact lies especially within the knowledge of a person,

the burden of proving that fact rests upon him. Accordingly, when an accused is

shown to have been last seen in the company of the deceased, it becomes

incumbent upon him to explain how and when they parted ways. The

explanation furnished must be reasonable, probable, and satisfactory in the

opinion of the Court. If such an explanation is offered, the burden cast by

Section 106 of the Evidence Act stands discharged. However, if the accused fails

to present a credible explanation regarding facts within his special knowledge,

this failure constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence

established against him. At the same time, it must be emphasized that Section

106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the primary burden of proof, which in a

criminal trial always remains on the prosecution.

31. Thus, any adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is to

be drawn against the accused person when the prosecution has been able to

establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

32. This Court in the case of Sabitri Samantaray vs. State of Odisha10

while elaborating on the principle surrounding Section 106 of the Evidence Act

observed that this provision does not dilute or substitute the prosecution’s

fundamental obligation to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

9 For short, ‘the Evidence Act’ 10 (2023) 11 SCC 813

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 12 of 14 doubt. Rather, it comes into operation only in situations where the prosecution

has already established a reasonable inference against the accused. This Court

held thus:

“18. Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual. Although the section in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution. If the accused had a different intention than the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove.

19. Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. [See Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 80]”

(emphasis supplied)

33. Further, in the case of Anees vs. State Government of NCT11, this Court

held thus:

“37. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word “especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its Illustration

(a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the

11 (2024) 15 SCC 48

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 13 of 14 prosecution to establish the facts which are, “especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience”.” (emphasis supplied)

D. CONCLUSION

34. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the nature of

circumstantial evidence available against the appellant though raises a doubt

that he may have committed the offence but the same is not so conclusive that

he can be convicted only on the evidence of the last seen together. Be that as it

may. It is a settled proposition that whenever any doubt emanates in the mind

of the Court, the benefit shall accrue to the accused and not the prosecution.

The present is a case where except for the evidence of last seen together, there

is no other corroborative evidence against the appellant. Therefore, the

conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be sustained.

35. Thus, we set aside the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High

Court as well as the Trial Court convicting the appellant for the offence under

Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged

against him. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.

36. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

………………………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

………………………………………J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 18, 2025

Criminal Appeal No.1129/2013 Page 14 of 14