Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha
Background
The appellant was convicted of murder and causing disappearance of evidence after his friend, with whom he was last seen going to collect cashew nuts, was found dead in a river the next day. The Trial Court and the Orissa High Court both convicted him mainly on the "last seen together" circumstance, together with a blood-stained stone recovered near the body and an unproven allegation of motive involving the appellant's wife. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that "last seen together" is, on its own, a weak piece of evidence and cannot sustain a conviction unless corroborated by other conclusive links completing an unbroken chain pointing only to guilt. Here, the alleged motive was raised for the first time in court by a witness whose police statement never mentioned it, the murder weapon was not recovered on the strength of any disclosure statement by the accused, and forensic blood-group tests on the stone and clothing were inconclusive. Relying on established precedent (including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Kanhaiya Lal), the Court held that mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof, and acquitted the appellant, setting aside both lower court convictions.
Lesson Learnt
Being the last person seen with someone who is later found dead is not, by itself, enough to convict a person of murder. The prosecution must build a complete, unbroken chain of solid evidence, and courts must give the accused the benefit of the doubt when that chain has real gaps.