A Person Cannot Be Convicted of Murder on Suspicion When the Chain of Evidence Has Missing Links
Case Name: Papan Sarkar @ Pranab v. State of West Bengal with Criminal Appeal No. 2508 of 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 528
Date of Judgment/Order: 22 May 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Held: The Supreme Court held that in a murder case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot be sustained unless every incriminating circumstance is clearly proved and the chain of circumstances is so complete that it rules out every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. The Court held that the “last seen together” theory becomes weak where there is a large time gap between the accused and deceased being seen together and the probable time of death. It further held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, particularly when it is inconsistent, exculpatory, made while the accused were detained by a mob, and unsupported by credible corroboration. The Court also held that recoveries from an open place cannot be treated as reliable Section 27 Evidence Act recoveries unless concealment and exclusive knowledge are clearly proved.
Summary: The case arose from the death of the son of the de facto complainant, who went missing on the evening of 30.10.2012 and was found dead the next day in a field. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was last seen with three accused, that extra-judicial confessions were made, and that weapons and a motorcycle were recovered pursuant to information from the accused. The Trial Court convicted the accused for murder, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court closely examined each circumstance and found serious gaps. The testimony of a witness who allegedly saw the accused and deceased drinking in a field did not inspire confidence; the time of death mentioned in the post-mortem was too elastic to make the last-seen circumstance proximate; the alleged extra-judicial confession was inconsistent and largely exculpatory; and the alleged recoveries of stone, glass pieces and motorcycle were not proved in the manner required under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court found that none of the circumstances, individually or cumulatively, formed a reliable chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellants.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, and directed that the appellants be released forthwith unless required in any other case. Their bail bonds were directed to stand cancelled if they had already been released. Since Accused No. 3 had not filed an appeal but was similarly placed and remained in jail, the Court directed the National Legal Services Authority, through the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority and the concerned District or Taluk Legal Services Authority, to provide legal assistance to Accused No. 3 and ensure filing of an appeal before the Supreme Court within two months, with compliance to be reported. Pending applications were disposed of.