Last Seen Together Alone Insufficient Without Complete Chain Pointing to Guilt

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (Dead) & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2026), acquitted a murder convict after 36 years of incarceration, holding that a conviction based on "last seen together" evidence cannot be sustained where prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the sole last-seen witness failed to identify the surviving appellant, the alleged motive rested on rumour, and the chain of circumstances was fatally incomplete.  

• The Court further directed release of a forfeited motorcycle, finding that forfeiture under Section 452 CrPC (Section 498 of BNSS) cannot proceed where the recovery witness was not examined and the vehicle's owner was neither an accused nor a witness. 

What was the Background of Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (Dead) & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

1. On November 2, 1986, Deepak Kumar, aged approximately 17 years, went missing from Mohalla Dilerganj, Kasba Shahabad, District Hardoi after being seen leaving on a Rajdoot motorcycle with Laxmi Kant alias Pappu, son of Natthu Lal, in whose house the deceased ran an electrical goods shop. Rumours of an alleged illicit relationship between the deceased and Laxmi Kant's married sister were cited as the motive. 
2. The following morning, an unidentified body bearing firearm injuries was found near the Jamaur culvert, Shahjahanpur, and was subsequently identified by the deceased's father as Deepak Kumar. A Rajdoot motorcycle was recovered from the house of a relative of the appellant Sunil Kumar. 
3. A check FIR was registered under Section 364 IPC at Police Station Shahabad, District Hardoi on November 3, 1986. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 364, 302, and 120-B IPC against four accused — Laxmi Kant alias Pappu, Sunil Kumar, Sri Kant, and Natthu Lal. 
4. The Sessions Judge, Hardoi, by judgment dated March 4, 1989, acquitted Natthu Lal and Sri Kant but convicted Laxmi Kant alias Pappu and Sunil Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000. The motorcycle was ordered forfeited to the State. 
5. Both convicts filed criminal appeals. Laxmi Kant alias Pappu died during the pendency of the appeal; his appeal stood abated by order dated February 15, 2024. The appeal survived only on behalf of Sunil Kumar. Puttoo Lal Trivedi, owner of the motorcycle, filed a separate criminal appeal challenging the forfeiture order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On last seen together evidence: PW-1, the sole last-seen witness, did not name or identify the surviving appellant Sunil Kumar, rendering his testimony entirely irrelevant to Sunil Kumar's conviction. The prosecution also withheld Sushil Kumar Singh, the only independent witness who allegedly identified the motorcycle number, without offering any explanation for his non-examination. 
• On testimony of related witness: The testimony of PW-4, the deceased's aunt, was rejected as highly improbable — the Court noting that persons harbouring a common intention to commit murder would not repeatedly pass in front of an acquaintance's house when an alternative route was available. 
• On hostile witnesses: The prosecution's star witnesses, PW-5 and PW-6, turned hostile. PW-6 specifically stated that his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded under fear and police misrepresentation. The Court held that such statements cannot be used as substantive evidence, and the dying declaration argument consequently failed. 
• On motive: The love letters relied upon could not be conclusively attributed to their alleged author, and the Court held that rumour cannot substitute proof of motive. 
• On the Panchsheel test: Applying the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Chetan v. State of Karnataka, the Court found the chain of circumstances fatally incomplete, as the prosecution had failed to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. 
• On forfeiture under Section 452 CrPC (Section 498 of BNSS): The Court held that forfeiture cannot be sustained where the recovery witness was not examined, no reason was recorded for denying return of the vehicle, and the owner was neither an accused nor a witness in the case. It directed release of the motorcycle to the appellant-owner. 

What is the "Last Seen Together" Doctrine? 

Concept and Meaning: 

• The "Last Seen Together" theory is a principle of circumstantial evidence used in criminal jurisprudence. It applies when two persons are seen alive together, and after a short interval, one is found dead while the other remains alive.  
• The shorter the time gap between when they were last seen together and when the body is discovered, the stronger the presumption that the surviving person caused the death.  
• This presumption rests on the logic that a brief interval rules out the possibility of a third party committing the crime. 

Nature of Evidence: 

• Last seen together evidence is secondary and circumstantial in nature. It is invoked primarily in the absence of direct evidence or eyewitnesses.  
• The theory does not, by itself, lead to a conclusion of guilt — it must be supported by a chain of corroborative circumstances that together complete the evidentiary puzzle.  
• If even one link in the chain is missing or broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 

Burden of Proof: 

• Under ordinary criminal law, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the accused presumed innocent.  
• However, the Last Seen Together doctrine operates to shift the burden of proof onto the accused.  
• Once the prosecution establishes that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased, it becomes the accused's responsibility to explain the circumstances.  

Applicability: 

• This theory finds application chiefly in serious crimes such as murder, kidnapping and rape where direct evidence is often unavailable. 

Judicial Interpretation: 

• Courts have applied this theory cautiously, on a case-to-case basis. In Jaswant Gir v. Punjab (2005), the Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the time gap between the deceased boarding a vehicle and the body being discovered was not sufficiently narrow, and other circumstantial evidence failed to form a complete chain.  
• Conversely, in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (1998), the accused was convicted for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl because last seen evidence was corroborated by other circumstances.  
• Similarly, in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012),  conviction for the rape and murder of a three-year-old followed because the accused was the last person seen with the child and the totality of evidence established guilt.  
• In Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2003), the court held that even without proof of homicidal death, conviction on the basis of last seen together is permissible in appropriate circumstances.