Supreme Court: Clues Alone Can Send You to Jail

In Chetan v. on May 30, 2025, the judgment made by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh confirmed that criminal convictions could be made on circumstantial evidence only. State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 7931). The judgment strengthens the values of taking strict standards in the assessment of such evidence based on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. Precedent of state of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116.

Facts:

Vikram Shindhe (deceased) and Chetan (appellant) were friends. Chetan lent the money of 4000 rupees to Vikram who had not returned it even after 7-8 months. After an argument about the loan which was not paid, Vikram insulted Chetan, thereby making him resentful. Chetan and Vikram went to a sugarcane field on a borrowed motor-scooter, on 10.07.2006. On a previous occasion, under an excuse of hunting, he had taken a pair of shotguns of his grandfather. He supposedly shot Vikram and stole his Nokia phone and his gold chain and ran to safety.

Appellant:

The prosecution did not establish a clear motive to murder taking into consideration that monetary exchange or serious financial issue could be not proven between the parties.

The police did not get a clear identification of the deceased because the body had undergone high levels of decomposition.

No one was an eyewitness of the appellant committing the crime together with the carrying of the firearm in question.
A clue that the police resorted to last seen theory was not reliable because only a couple, the younger brother of the deceased and one of his friends, were the people who could confirm seeing him, but the testimonies might be predisposed.
The appellant did not steal property as was testified against her by the mobile shopkeeper who testified that the appellant had never bought a phone off him.

The gun that was accused of causing the crime was made not by the accuser but by his grandfather and therefore it is very possible that the weapon had nothing to do with the suspect.

Respondent:

It is possible to identify the corpse by photography, but the personal property that includes a handkerchief, a motorcycle key that was found in the pants pocket, and a sweater that was found on the body allowed the father of the deceased to recognize him.
In fact, one witness reported seeing the two (the appellant and the deceased) together at one of the bus stands and walking in the direction of the village where the sugarcane fields and the eventual site of the crime were, indicating to the theory of the last seen together.

Respondent:

It is possible to identify the corpse by photography, but the personal property that includes a handkerchief, a motorcycle key that was found in the pants pocket, and a sweater that was found on the body allowed the father of the deceased to recognize him.
In fact, one witness reported seeing the two (the appellant and the deceased) together at one of the bus stands and walking in the direction of the village where the sugarcane fields and the eventual site of the crime were, indicating to the theory of the last seen together.

Legal analysis:

The court has taken support of the State of Goa v. 3 SCC 755 / 2007 case of Sanjay Thakran and Anr. The case states that-last-seen theory(when a person is last seen being alive in the company of the accused and after that found dead) holds well when difference in time is such that it does not leave any chance of any other person involvement but a much longer time does not say anything automatically against this; when the prosecution is able to eliminate third party involvement.

It also depended upon Rajesh Yadav and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 12 SCC 200, where the court said that the statements of a chance witness, who was present at a place by accident and a chance witness are not to be rejected just because the witness happened to be there by chance. Provided that such witness reasonably explains his or her presence at the scene and the rest of his testimony is plausible and not biased or coloured with hostility, it can be admissible and can be trusted once subjected to critical examination.

It relied on In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 that in the criminal cases arising out of circumstantial evidence, especially where the crime has been committed inside the home and there are no eye witnesses, the accused must have given a reasonable explanation to the circumstances against him, especially when circumstances are within the special knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of Evidence Act. In the event of the accused not providing any explanation, or the explanation being found to be untrue, such omission is another chain of circumstances that lead to guilt.

Building upon the latter, it was also based on Mukesh & Anr. Vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1 (the famous Nirbhaya case) which ruled that in the presence of incriminating articles found by the accused/police, it becomes obligatory on the latter to state the reason as to why they have them in their possession. The inability of Chetan to clarify on the incriminating evidence made him be convicted within the court.

Finally, the court made deprivation based on Manu Sao v. This has been held by State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 310 when it was stated that when the accused person fails to reply or responds with evasive or untruthful answers when asked questions which correlate to an incriminating cases, courts have a right to infer an adverse inference and this postulate still holds. The fact that Chetan did not talk when he was in possession of the incriminating evidence made the court implicate it against him i.e. guilty.

More significant of all, the court has depended on a landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, which postulates 5 golden rules.

The ruling confirmed and supported the view that only circumstantial evidence can be used to convict and punish a criminal when it takes the form of an uninterrupted chain that leads to an absolute indicator of culpability.

CORRAM:

Justice Surya Kant

Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Justice