Supreme Court Reinforces Limits of the “Last-Seen-Together” Doctrine
A Comprehensive Commentary on Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha, 2025 INSC 751

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha (2025 INSC 751) revisits a perennial problem in criminal jurisprudence: how far can courts rely on the “last-seen-together” circumstance to convict an accused in the absence of direct evidence? The appellant, Padman Bibhar, stood convicted by the Trial Court and the Orissa High Court for murder (§302 IPC) and destruction of evidence (§201 IPC). The Supreme Court, however, acquitted him, holding that the evidentiary chain was incomplete and that “last seen together” alone—unaccompanied by reliable corroboration—falls short of the threshold of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.”

The decision consolidates, clarifies, and slightly expands earlier jurisprudence (e.g., Sharad Sarda, Kanhaiya Lal, Rambraksh) by articulating practical expectations from investigators and trial courts when dealing with purely circumstantial cases.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court (Bench: Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra JJ.) allowed the criminal appeal and:

• Set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below.
• Acquitted the appellant of all charges and ordered his release.
• Reasoned that:
  • The only substantial circumstance proved was that the accused was “last seen” with the deceased.
  • The alleged weapon (a blood-stained stone) was not recovered on the appellant’s disclosure; the chemical report was inconclusive.
  • Purported motive was speculative and introduced at trial for the first time.
  • Delay in lodging the FIR and contradictions as to where the body was found further weakened the prosecution.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Ramanand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) – Recognised that “absolute certainty is a myth”; perfect proof is seldom available, but courts must seek a complete chain of circumstances.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) – Laid down the classic five “golden principles” for conviction on circumstantial evidence; the Court repeatedly dovetailed its reasoning to these principles.
• Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014) & Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016) – Termed “last-seen-together” a weak circumstance unless the time gap is so narrow that it rules out anyone else.
• Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013) – Re-emphasised that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof.

The Court treated these authorities not as mere backdrops but as operative tools: each citation directly mapped onto a lacuna in prosecution evidence—motive, recovery, and time-gap.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Circumstantial Evidence Framework
   Applying Sharad Sarda, the Bench tested whether every link in the chain was proved and whether the proved facts irresistibly pointed to guilt. They found the chain broken at multiple nodes: motive, recovery, forensic linkage, and time-gap.
2. Evaluation of “Last-Seen” Test
   The Court emphasised:
   “The only evidence against the appellant is of ‘last seen together’… conviction on that basis alone cannot be sustained.”
   Two additional factors were deemed essential for “last seen” to crystallise into guilt:
   (i) a proximate time interval between last sighting and death; and
   (ii) some further incriminating circumstance (disclosure, recovery, injuries on the accused, CCTV, scientific evidence, etc.).
3. Motive Not Proved
   A quarrel over the appellant’s suspicions about his wife emerged only in court; the police statement under §161 CrPC lacked it, rendering the motive speculative.
4. Forensic & Recovery Defects
   Human blood on the stone/shirt was not correlated to the deceased’s blood group; the stone was not “discovered” via a voluntary statement under §27 Evidence Act. Thus, the recovery lacked evidentiary potency.
5. Inadequate §313 CrPC Questioning
   Not all incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant, breaching audi alteram partem and diluting the evidentiary value of those circumstances.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Investigation

• Higher Bar for Conviction on Circumstantial Cases – Trial courts must search for positive corroboration beyond mere last-seen evidence (e.g., DNA, CCTV, electronic trails).
• Investigative Imperatives – Police must ensure prompt FIRs, meticulous recovery following §27 protocols, and scientific matching of blood/DNA to avoid acquittals stemming from technical gaps.
• Defence Strategy – Defence counsel can rely on this judgment to highlight any missing link when the prosecution hinges principally on “last seen.”
• Judicial Consistency – Though the principle isn’t new, this decision serves as a strong contemporary reminder, likely to be cited frequently for the proposition that “last seen” is a weak circumstance unless bolstered.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Last-Seen-Together Doctrine – If A is the last person seen with B (now deceased), there is suspicion on A. But without more (e.g., immediate timeframe, corroborative proof), courts will not convict solely on that basis.
• Circumstantial Evidence – Proof of surrounding facts from which one infers the main fact (the commission of the crime). Courts require a “complete chain” where each link is proved beyond doubt.
• §313 CrPC Statement – An accused’s chance to explain any circumstance appearing in evidence. Failure to put crucial circumstances to the accused weakens the prosecution case.
• Memorandum Statement & Recovery under §27 Evidence Act – If an accused, while in police custody, voluntarily confesses and leads to discovery of a fact/object, that portion of the confession is admissible. Here, no such valid discovery took place.
• Benefit of Doubt – When evidence produces a reasonable uncertainty about guilt, the accused must be acquitted; the burden of proof lies wholly on the prosecution.

5. Conclusion

Padman Bibhar is less about breaking new ground and more about emphatically restating a critical safeguard in criminal law: “Suspicion, however strong, is not proof.” The Supreme Court insists on adherence to the full rigour of the circumstantial-evidence test. Investigators must shore up cases with scientific and corroborative material; prosecutors must ensure every link is placed before the court and before the accused under §313 CrPC; and courts must resist the impulse to convert moral suspicion into legal guilt. In an era where technological tools can easily provide that missing “link,” the judgment chastises investigative complacency and reinforces the liberty-protective core of criminal adjudication.