Conviction For Murder Cannot Rest Solely On 'Last Seen Together' Theory Without Other Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently acquitted two men who were convicted for the 2013 murder of a woman in Karnataka's Kalaburgi, holding that the prosecution failed to prove their involvement beyond reasonable doubt. Court said that the sole remaining circumstance against the accused was the theory of "last seen together", which by itself was insufficient to sustain a conviction for a serious offence like murder.

Court further held that the alleged discovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not be relied upon against the accused as the statutory safeguards were not satisfied. As a result, it set aside their conviction and acquitted them of all charges.

The case arose from allegations that the deceased's elder brother, Kalappa, along with Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar, Imamsab @ Haneef, and Mahadev Sidram Hullolli, had abducted, murdered and later burnt the woman's body to destroy evidence.

According to the prosecution, Kalappa wanted to eliminate his sister because he had borrowed a substantial amount of money from her and was unwilling to repay it. It was also alleged that he had sold ancestral property and refused to share the proceeds with her. The woman went missing on March 23, 2013, and her burnt body was recovered four days later. The complaint was lodged by her son, Basanagowda alias Milan.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan was hearing appeals filed by Pujari and Hullolli against a Karnataka High Court judgment that had upheld their conviction under Sections 302, 364, 404 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 103(1), 140(1), 315, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS respectively].

Evidence against the two accused insufficient

Examining the case, Court noted that the prosecution's entire case rested on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Bench reiterated that every link in the chain of circumstances must be firmly established before an accused can be convicted.

Court observed that the two appellants had no direct dispute or animosity with the deceased. "When we are talking about motive, the appellants had no motive to eliminate the deceased," the bench said.

It then examined the two circumstances relied upon by the prosecution against the appellants: the theory of "last seen together" and the alleged discovery of facts based on disclosure statements made by the accused while in police custody.

A prosecution witness had claimed that he saw the deceased sitting in a Maruti 800 car with her brother near Mudhol Shivaji Circle at around 5.30 PM and that the appellants and another co-accused subsequently entered the vehicle. Based on this testimony, the prosecution argued that all four accused were last seen in the company of the deceased.

However, the Supreme Court reiterated that the "last seen together" theory applies only where the gap between the deceased being last seen alive and the discovery of the death is so small that the possibility of anyone else committing the crime becomes impossible. Even then, some corroborative evidence is ordinarily required.

The Bench observed that it is now well settled that the circumstance of "last seen together" does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the crime. There must be additional evidence connecting the accused with the offence.

"It would be too risky to reach the conclusion that the appellants before us are guilty of a serious crime like murder, in their capacity as accomplice, solely on this piece of circumstance of 'last seen together'," Court said.

What did the Supreme Court say about Section 27 discovery evidence?

The prosecution had also relied upon disclosure statements allegedly made by the accused while in police custody, claiming that they had pointed out the places where the deceased was abducted, killed and where her body was burnt.

However, Court noted that according to the investigating officer's own testimony, Kalappa had first identified the place where the deceased was killed. Thereafter, each accused was separately taken to the same locations and allegedly pointed out the very same spots.

Court observed that most of the discoveries were actually attributable to Kalappa and not to the appellants. It also noted the argument that a joint disclosure statement made by more than one accused has little evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Referring to settled law, the Bench reiterated that Section 27 permits admission only of that portion of a statement which distinctly relates to a fact discovered and not the entire confession.

Court found that the courts below had committed an error in placing implicit reliance on the discovery evidence. It further observed that once the police already possess information about a particular fact, any subsequent disclosure by another accused leading to the same information does not amount to a fresh discovery admissible under Section 27.

In the present case, the Bench held that the safeguards contemplated under Section 27 were absent. Therefore, the alleged discovery of the place of murder and the place where the body was burnt could not be used against the appellants.

Having excluded the discovery evidence, Court noted that only the circumstance of "last seen together" remained.

"We are of the view that it will be too much for us to affirm the conviction of the appellants for a serious offence like murder solely relying on the circumstance of last seen together. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution case 'may be true' but it is not that of 'must be true', and there is a long distance to travel between 'may be' and 'must be'," the Bench said.

Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment and acquitted the two appellants.

Case Title: Anand Jakkappa Pujari @Gaddadar Vs The State of Karnataka

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan

Date of Judgment: April 27, 2026