Analysis of "last seen together" doctrine and proper procedure under Section 161 CrPC.

The Supreme Court of India overturned the concurrent convictions of the appellant,Vinod Kumar, for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant had been convicted by the Sessions Court in Delhi, and this conviction was upheld by the High Court of Delhi. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged these findings of guilt.

Background: That, on July 12, 1995, when the appellant took the deceased, Dharminder, his neighbour, from his residence. When Dharminder did not return, his parents (PW-1 and PW-3) inquired about his whereabouts. They received inconsistent responses from the appellant. Subsequently, a missing person report was filed, and the appellant was found to have absconded with his father. The deceased's body was discovered the next day with his hands tied and a rope around his neck. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The Apex Court observed that the prosecution could not prove the essential fact of "last seen together" beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW-1 (deceased's father) was held to be unreliable on this aspect as he was asleep when the deceased had gone with the appellant, and his later statements were hearsay. In respect of PW-3 (mother of the deceased), the Court observed considerable discrepancies, improvement, omissions, and contradictions in her testimony, especially with regard to how the deceased was picked up by the appellant and the occasions of her questioning at the appellant's house. Such omissions were deemed so material that they constituted contradictions under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, making her testimony unreliable.

The Supreme Court also held that the High Court's finding that the appellant made evasive answers with a purpose to mislead the parents was not tenable because of the loopholes in PW-3's depositions. The Court repeated the rule that in circumstantial evidence cases, the chain of circumstances needs to be complete and leave no scope for a conclusion in conformity with the innocence of the accused. Here, the inability to prove the "last seen together" situation and the provision of evasive answers weakened the chain of evidence.

In addition, the Apex Court pointed out a "peculiar practice" adopted by the Trial Court in recording cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3. The Trial Court had copied parts of their earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC, intended for contradiction, verbatim at the place of deposition without them being properly proved by the investigating officer. The Supreme Court elucidated the proper procedure as according to which such portions should be marked and separately proved to be part of the deposition.

Finally, the Supreme Court held that the appellant's conviction and sentence were not sustainable based on the absence of establishing vital circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned lower court judgments were quashed and set aside, and the appellant acquitted of the offence.

Coram: Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Between: Vinod Kumar vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2025 INSC 209
Date of Judgment: 13-02-2025