The doctrine of ‘last seen together’: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Introduction The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently delivered its judgment in CRM-M-62038-2024, concerning the bail application of an accused in a case involving murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case presented significant legal issues, including the evidentiary value of confessional statements, the doctrine of ‘last seen together,’ and the retrospective application of procedural safeguards regarding the grounds of arrest.

Factual Background:

The case revolved around the murder of Sumit, whose body was found with injuries to the head and stomach. The primary accusation was against Anurag alias Arjun, Sandeep alias Koki, and Ravinder alias Tanni alias Tarun. Anurag was alleged to have fired the fatal shot, while the petitioner (Ravinder) was accused of inflicting danda (stick) blows on the victim’s head.

During the investigation, Anurag’s disclosure statement led to the recovery of a country-made pistol and a motorcycle. Ravinder’s statement resulted in the recovery of a danda and another motorcycle. CCTV footage and mobile phone records placed all accused near the crime scene, strengthening the prosecution’s case.

Legal Contentions and Court’s Analysis

1. Evidentiary Value of Confessional Statements The petitioner argued that his alleged involvement arose solely from confessional statements, which hold limited evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent evidence. The court acknowledged that such statements are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act unless they lead to the discovery of new evidence under Section 27.
2. Distinction Between Co-Accused The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that co-accused Sandeep alias Koki had already been granted bail. However, the court distinguished between the roles of the accused, noting that while Sandeep was seen with the deceased before the incident, he was attributed only kick and fist blows, whereas the petitioner was directly linked to the fatal injuries through his alleged danda blows. The postmortem report corroborated blunt force trauma, supporting this distinction.
3. Doctrine of ‘Last Seen Together’ CCTV footage showed the petitioner and the deceased traveling in close proximity before the crime, reinforcing the doctrine of ‘last seen together.’ The court found this evidence substantial in establishing the petitioner’s involvement.
4. Grounds of Arrest and Retrospective Application The petitioner argued that his arrest was illegal as he was not provided written grounds of arrest, relying on Supreme Court rulings in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023), Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2024). However, the court ruled that these judgments apply prospectively from October 3, 2023. Since the petitioner was arrested in February 2022, he could not benefit from this procedural safeguard.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the crime, the corroborative evidence, and the lack of procedural violations based on the retrospective application of legal safeguards. This judgment reaffirms the importance of distinguishing between co-accused based on their specific roles, the weightage given to forensic and electronic evidence, and the limited retrospective application of new procedural protections.

References

1. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023(4) RCR (Criminal) 446.
2. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254.
3. Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Another, SLP (Crl.) No.13320 of 2024.
4. Ram Kishore Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024(1) RCR (Criminal) 317.
5. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
6. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
7. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.