Can Last Seen Theory Alone Prove Murder? Supreme Court Clarifies

The Supreme Court has held that a conviction cannot be based solely on the “last seen” theory in the absence of any other incriminating circumstance, observing that the testimony of witnesses relied upon to establish the theory must be credible and inspire confidence.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Munu Sen and acquitting him of the murder charge. The Bench found the testimony of witnesses regarding the last seen theory unreliable and insufficient to sustain his conviction.

Why did the Supreme Court reject the conviction based on the last seen theory?

Court found that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to establish the last seen theory did not inspire confidence. It also made it clear that a conviction cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the last seen theory without any other incriminating circumstance.

As per the facts of the case, a passerby saw a dead body lying on the bank of a pond near a temple and informed the police. The body was subsequently identified. The post-mortem examination revealed that the deceased had died of hemorrhagic shock and had suffered a number of wounds all over the body.

The fact that the death was homicidal was established unequivocally. However, the question before the Supreme Court was whether the charge of murder against the appellant could be sustained.

The only evidence relied upon for convicting the appellant was the last seen theory spoken to by prosecution witnesses (PWs) 1 to 4.

The high court had found that the last seen theory was strong enough to justify the conviction recorded by the trial court.

“The high court found that the last seen theory being strong enough, conviction as entered by the trial court is justified; with which we cannot concur,” the Bench said.

“Having gone through the judgment of the trial court and the appellate court, we do not find any reason to sustain the conviction,” it added.

What did the Supreme Court find about the witnesses?

Court noted that the deceased was allegedly thrown upon by another accused and his wife, who had deposed before the court as PW1.

The Bench observed that PWs 1 and 2 were initially declared hostile but subsequently stated that they had seen the two accused assaulting the deceased. The two accused were PW1’s husband, who had gone absconding, and the appellant, who was their son-in-law. The deceased was also said to have been brought up by PW1 and her husband.

Court further noted that PWs 2 to 4 spoke about the deceased having been turned out of PW1’s house. They also spoke about the assault allegedly committed by PW1’s husband and the appellant. However, none of the witnesses appeared to have intervened during the alleged assault.

“The testimony of the witnesses to prove the last seen theory does not inspire confidence. We also notice that there can be no conviction merely on the basis of the last seen theory without any other incriminating circumstance,” the Bench said.

Court was informed that the appellant had already been released on remission. However, it noted that he wanted a clear acquittal and therefore the matter was argued before the court.

“We are of the opinion that the appellant is to be acquitted and we do so. We make it clear that if at all, any bonds were executed on remission for the purpose of release, those shall stand cancelled,” the Bench ordered.

Case Title: Munu Sen Vs The State of Chhattisgarh

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026