Circumstantial evidence & The last-seen theory are crucial aspects of Criminal Jurisprudence, Supreme Court: Detailed Analysis of Judgment in Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 167), deliberated on crucial aspects of criminal jurisprudence, particularly regarding circumstantial evidence, the last-seen theory, and recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal, overturning the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), on grounds of evidentiary inconsistencies and failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts of the Case

1. Incident and Initial Investigation:
   • The deceased, Neeraj Yadav, went missing on November 29, 2013, and a missing report was filed the next day.
   • His body was discovered floating in a stone quarry pond on December 2, 2013.
   • A post-mortem confirmed homicidal death due to head injuries.
   • Based on circumstantial evidence, Raja Khan was arrested and charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) IPC.
2. Prosecution’s Case:
   • The deceased and the accused had a monetary dispute.
   • The accused allegedly murdered the deceased using an iron pipe and gandasa (battleaxe) before throwing the body into the pond.
   • Recoveries of a blood-stained stone, weapons, and two gold chains purportedly belonging to the deceased were made at the appellant’s instance.
   • Witnesses (PW-21 and PW-23) claimed to have last seen the deceased with the accused on November 29, 2013.
3. Conviction and Appeal:
   • The Trial Court convicted Raja Khan based on circumstantial evidence.
   • The High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the ‘last seen’ theory and recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
   • The accused challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, citing evidentiary inconsistencies.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the last-seen theory was reliable in the absence of corroborative evidence.
3. Whether the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were legally tenable.
4. Whether procedural lapses in investigation and trial vitiated the conviction.

Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Judgment

1. Circumstantial Evidence and Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The Supreme Court reiterated the well-established principles governing circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. The five essential conditions for circumstantial evidence to hold weight were not satisfactorily met in the present case, particularly the requirement that the evidence should exclude every hypothesis except guilt.

2. The Last-Seen Theory and Its Limitations

The Court found that:

• PW-21 and PW-23, who claimed to have last seen the deceased with the accused, had inconsistencies in their testimonies.
• Their statements were not corroborated by other key witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5).
• The time gap between the last-seen incident and the recovery of the body was substantial, allowing for alternate possibilities.

Citing State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, the Court emphasized that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the last-seen theory must be supported by additional evidence establishing the proximity of the accused to the crime.

3. Recovery of Evidence Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

The prosecution relied on recoveries made at the appellant’s instance. However, the Supreme Court noted serious inconsistencies:

• Gold Chains Recovery: The chains were allegedly recovered from the appellant’s terrace, but witnesses stated that the police climbed the roof externally without the appellant’s presence.
• Stone and Gandasa Recovery: The diver (PW-26) admitted retrieving them based on police instructions rather than the appellant’s disclosure.
• Tip Identification Issues: PW-20’s testimony contradicted the prosecution’s claim that the chains belonged to the deceased.

Referring to Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) and Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Court reiterated that discovery under Section 27 must lead to material facts unknown to the police. Here, the circumstances raised reasonable doubt about the legitimacy of recoveries.

4. Procedural Lapses and Unreliable Testimonies

• Panch witnesses (PW-22 and PW-26) admitted signing multiple documents at the police station without witnessing actual recoveries.
• The investigating officer (PW-25) contradicted key aspects of the recovery process.
• The accused’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denying involvement was not effectively rebutted by the prosecution.

Conclusion and Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of events proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Given the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, procedural lapses, and unreliable recoveries, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

Key Findings:

1. The circumstantial evidence did not conclusively establish guilt.
2. The last-seen theory was weak due to lack of corroboration.
3. The recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were unreliable.
4. The prosecution failed to prove motive and establish a clear chain of evidence.

This judgment underscores the principle that in cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish guilt conclusively. Procedural diligence and adherence to evidentiary standards remain crucial in upholding the integrity of criminal convictions.

References

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254
3. Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67
4. Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45
5. Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71
6. Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1116
7. Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 12 SCC 545
8. Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724