Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence—including the “last seen together” theory, extra-judicial confessions, and weapon recoveries—sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused for premeditated murder.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversing the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, and acquitted the appellants (Accused 1 and 2). Furthermore, noticing that the non-appealing co-accused (Accused 3) was also languishing in jail under identical circumstances, the Court issued special directions to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to assist him in filing an appeal.
1. Introduction and Background
The case arose from the murder of the de-facto complainant’s son, who went missing on the evening of October 30, 2012, and was found dead the next morning in a ditch within a paddy field. Suspicion fell on his three companions who were seen drinking and roaming with him. The Trial Court convicted all three accused of premeditated murder, and the High Court subsequently confirmed the decision. Two of the convicts (Accused 1, Papan Sarkar @ Pranab, and Accused 2) appealed to the Supreme Court, while Accused 3 did not file an appeal.
2. Prosecution’s Case and Lower Courts’ Reasoning
The prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence to build its case, asserting that:
- The deceased left his home with the three accused on a motorbike at approximately 4:00 PM on October 30, 2012.
- A witness (PW-11) saw them drinking together in a field behind a government (BDO) office that evening.
- The accused made extra-judicial confessions to the villagers after being detained the next morning.
- Crucial physical evidence—including the murder weapons (a stone and glass piece) and the deceased’s motorbike—was recovered on the information and showing of the accused.
- Human blood was detected on the recovered stone per the serological report.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court held that these elements formed a complete, un-shattered chain of circumstances proving guilt.
3. Supreme Court’s Deconstruction of Evidence
The Supreme Court meticulously evaluated each circumstance and found the prosecution’s links to be fundamentally weak and unproven:
- Infirmities in the “Last Seen Together” Theory: While witnesses saw the men together around 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM on the previous evening, the post-mortem report offered a very broad, elastic timeframe for the death (“24 hours not passed”). The Court emphasized that for the “last seen” theory to act as an incriminating circumstance, the time gap between the meeting and death must be proximate. Given the large time gap overnight, intervening circumstances could not be ruled out. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-11 (who claimed to see them drinking) was deemed highly suspicious and unreliable during cross-examination because she could not identify her employer or workplace in that allegedly crowded locality.
- Invalidity of the Extra-Judicial Confessions: The Court observed that the alleged confessions were made while Accused 1 and 2 were being forcefully detained by an aggressive village mob. Such environments entail immense pressure and threats of violence—corroborated by physical injuries later found on the accused during medical exams. Additionally, the testimonies of the witnesses conflicted; most described the statement as an “exculpatory statement” where Accused 1 blamed the others rather than a true confession, rendering it legally unreliable.
- Defective Recoveries (Section 27 of the Evidence Act): The recoveries of the stone and glass piece failed to meet the strict legal thresholds of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The police did not record any statement from the accused proving they had concealed the items with exclusive knowledge of their location; the seizure list merely stated the items were “shown and certified by” them in an open field. Critically, the prosecution failed to present the physical stone or glass piece in court to confront the witnesses, and never showed them to the autopsy doctor to confirm if they could cause the brutal skull fractures and lacerations observed.
- Motorbike Seizure & Lack of Motive: Discrepancies marred the recovery of the motorcycle, as the house owner where it was allegedly parked failed to identify the accused. The registration details were never proffered in court. Lastly, the Court highlighted that the complete absence of any established motive further weakened an already fractured chain of circumstances.
4. Conclusion and Landmark Directions
Finding that none of the projected circumstances qualified as legally incriminating links, the Supreme Court determined that a hypothesis of innocence remained entirely viable.
The Court passed the following orders:
- Acquittal: The orders of conviction were reversed, the appeals were allowed, and Accused 1 and Accused 2 were ordered to be released forthwith.
- Suo Motu Intervention for Non-Appealing Accused (A3): Acknowledging that Accused 3 was similarly situated and languishing in jail but lacked an appeal, the Court invoked its protective mandate. It directed the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to coordinate with the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority to provide immediate legal aid to Accused 3 and ensure an appeal is filed on his behalf within two months. The compliance report for this exercise was scheduled for July 20, 2026.
2026 INSC 528
Papan Sarkar @ Pranab V. State of West Bengal (D.O.J. 22.05.2026)
