Supreme Court Reiterates That ‘Last Seen Together’ Theory Alone Cannot Sustain a Murder Conviction Without Corroborative Evidence

Case Name: Munu Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh

Date of Judgment: 29 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 780

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Held: The Supreme Court held that the “last seen together” circumstance, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for convicting an accused for murder unless it is supported by other reliable incriminating circumstances completing the chain of evidence. Where witness testimonies are inconsistent, unreliable, or fail to inspire confidence, a conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained merely because the accused was allegedly last seen with the deceased. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary: The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for murder based almost entirely on the last seen theory. The prosecution established that the deceased died a homicidal death due to multiple bleeding injuries, but the principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence was sufficient to connect the appellant with the crime.

The prosecution relied upon the testimony of four witnesses who claimed that the deceased had last been seen in the company of the appellant and another accused. The Trial Court accepted this evidence and convicted the appellant, while the High Court affirmed the conviction, treating the last seen circumstance as sufficiently strong to establish guilt.

Upon examining the evidence, the Supreme Court found serious deficiencies. The Court noted that PW-1 and PW-2 had initially been declared hostile before later implicating the appellant. Their testimony, along with that of PW-2 to PW-4, failed to inspire confidence and contained inconsistencies regarding the alleged assault. The prosecution had not produced any corroborative circumstance such as recovery of incriminating material, forensic evidence, motive, or any other circumstance completing the chain of circumstantial evidence.

The Court emphasised that although homicidal death was conclusively established, proof of homicide does not automatically establish the identity of the perpetrator. Since the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction could not be sustained. The Court also observed that although the appellant had already been released on remission, he sought a declaration of complete innocence. Accepting the appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted him and directed that any bonds executed pursuant to remission would stand cancelled.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, acquitted the appellant of the charge of murder, cancelled any remission bonds that had been executed for his release, and closed all pending applications.