When ‘Last Seen Together’ Is Not Enough: The Supreme Court on Circumstantial Evidence.
Introduction
Circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role in criminal jurisprudence, yet courts have consistently cautioned against convictions based on incomplete or speculative chains of circumstances. The “last seen together” doctrine is frequently relied upon as a connecting link between the accused and the crime, but its uncritical application risks undermining the presumption of innocence.
On December 18, 2025, in Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 1466. the Supreme Court examined whether the mere fact that the accused was last seen with the deceased, coupled with an alleged failure to explain the circumstances under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, could sustain a conviction for murder. The decision is significant in reaffirming that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in cases founded solely on circumstantial evidence.
Factual Background
The prosecution alleged that the appellant was last seen with the deceased on the evening of 6 June 2004, and that the deceased was found dead the following day in a burnt and decomposed condition. Multiple accused were charged under Sections 302, 396, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted all co-accused except the appellant.
The conviction rested primarily on the testimonies of two witnesses supporting the last seen theory and on medical evidence establishing homicidal death. No eyewitness account, forensic evidence, or recovery directly linked the appellant to the crime. Nonetheless, the Hon’ble High Court affirmed the conviction, drawing an adverse inference against the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Judicial Reasoning
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles governing circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, emphasizing that each circumstance must be conclusively proved and must point solely towards the guilt of the accused. While the homicidal nature of death was undisputed, the Court found that the alleged motive of looting a tractor was speculative and unsupported by recovery or subsequent conduct.
On the applicability of the “last seen together” doctrine, the Court held that it gains significance only when the time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of death is so narrow as to exclude the possibility of third-party involvement. Such proximity was not established in the present case. The Court further clarified that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to compensate for shortcomings in the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion
The acquittal in Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to safeguarding the presumption of innocence. The judgment reiterates that the “last seen together” theory, without substantive corroboration, is insufficient to sustain a conviction and underscores the need for judicial caution in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.
About Author: Anupriya Dixit is as Associate at Pratap & Co. and handles criminal and matrimonial litigation