Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Introduction:
In this significant criminal law ruling, the Supreme Court held that a conviction based solely on the 'last seen together' theory is unsustainable if the accused has raised a plausible plea of alibi, and the prosecution has failed to disprove it. The Court emphasized that the burden of disproving the alibi lies with the prosecution, especially when the accused has raised the plea at the earliest possible stage.
- Section 2, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Circumstantial evidence and standard of proof.
- Section 9, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Relevance of facts not otherwise relevant (including alibi).
Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Jagdish Gond, was convicted by the High Court for the alleged murder of his wife who was found dead in their matrimonial home. The Trial Court had acquitted Jagdish, finding insufficient evidence, but the High Court reversed this acquittal, convicting him primarily on the basis that he was “last seen” with the deceased. Jagdish had intimated the police before the FIR was even registered, stating that he was on duty at a cement factory when the death occurred. The police did not investigate this alibi or verify his whereabouts at the time of death. The wife’s relatives initially did not raise suspicion, and it was only after five days that a formal complaint was made alleging harassment and suspected suicide.
Issues:
- Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of the 'last seen' theory?
- Whether the burden to prove an alibi lies entirely on the accused when such a plea is raised at the earliest opportunity?
- Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal by the Trial Court in the absence of a complete chain of circumstances?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
He had intimated the police immediately after discovering his wife's death and stated he was on duty at the time. His alibi was genuine, stated early, and not an afterthought. The prosecution failed to verify his presence at the cement factory, and no material evidence existed linking him directly to the crime. The High Court wrongly placed the burden of proving the alibi on him, which was contrary to established principles.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The deceased was found dead in the matrimonial home, where the accused also resided, making the accused liable to explain the circumstances. The fact that the accused and deceased were last seen together raised strong suspicion. The accused did not conclusively prove his alibi, making the conviction sustainable. Circumstantial evidence, although limited, pointed towards the guilt of the accused.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court reaffirmed the principle that “last seen together” is only one piece of circumstantial evidence and cannot, by itself, prove guilt unless backed by a complete chain of circumstances. Citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Court reiterated that every link in the chain of circumstances must point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused and rule out any other hypothesis. The accused’s alibi was not only plausible but mentioned at the earliest opportunity, and thus the onus shifted to the prosecution to disprove it. The police failed to investigate the accused’s presence at the cement factory — a serious lapse. The High Court erred by reversing the acquittal without any new or compelling evidence, and by wrongly placing the burden of proving the alibi on the accused. The relatives of the deceased did not initially suspect foul play, and no motive or direct evidence was established. The Court held that mere suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute legal proof.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the High Court, and restored the acquittal by the Trial Court.
It held that no circumstance or chain of evidence conclusively established guilt, and the plea of alibi remained unchallenged by the prosecution. The accused was ordered to be released immediately, if not required in any other case.
