“Bridging the Temporal Gap” – Supreme Court Clarifies the Extended Last-Seen Rule with Forensic Corroboration
(Commentary on CHETAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2025 INSC 793)

1. Introduction

Chetan v. State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 793) addresses the perennial question of how far the “last-seen together” doctrine can stretch when the gap between sighting and the discovery of a dead body is not minimal. The Supreme Court of India, speaking through Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J., affirmed the appellant’s conviction for murder entirely on circumstantial evidence, emphasising that:

• a longer time gap is not fatal if corroborated by forensic and ballistic evidence, and
• an accused’s failure to explain incriminatory discoveries (under Sections 27 & 106, Evidence Act) completes the chain of circumstances.

The decision intertwines classical tests for circumstantial evidence with modern forensic science, effectively “bridging” the temporal gap that traditionally weakened the last-seen theory.

2. Summary of the Judgment

1. The appellant, Chetan, was last seen with his friend Vikram on the evening of 10-07-2006. Vikram’s decomposed body with gunshot wounds was found in a sugarcane field on 13-07-2006.
2. Recovery of a dismantled 12-bore double-barrel gun, two spent and one live cartridge, a torch and the victim’s gold chain was made at the appellant’s instance from his grandfather’s house.
3. Ballistic opinion proved the gun was recently discharged; the pellets and wads removed from the skull could be fired from that very weapon.
4. Trial Court and High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, Section 404 IPC (for the gold chain) and Sections 25/27 Arms Act; both rejected his appeals.
5. The Supreme Court, while giving benefit of doubt on the stolen mobile phone (404 IPC partly set aside), upheld the remaining convictions, laying down that:
   • Three-day gap between last-seen and the body’s discovery does not vitiate the chain when backed by decisive forensic linkage.
   • Failure to explain the weapon’s recent discharge attracts an adverse inference under Section 106.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Five “golden principles” for circumstantial evidence were reiterated and applied.
• Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 253 – Cited for the appellate standard under Article 136: Supreme Court interferes only for perversity or grave miscarriage of justice.
• State Of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 – Deals with time-gap limitations in last-seen theory. The Court distinguished it, holding that forensic corroboration can safely extend the doctrine.
• Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. (2022) 12 SCC 200 – Clarified acceptability of “chance witnesses”, relied on to validate PW-5’s testimony.
• Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State Of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 – Used for the proposition that unexplained incriminating circumstances become an additional link.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Employed by the Court

1. Homicidal Death Established
   Medical and ballistic experts established gunshot homicide; suicide/accident ruled out as gun was not found near the body.
2. Last-Seen Together + Temporal Gap
   Evidence of five witnesses placed the appellant and deceased together between 8–9:30 pm on 10-07-2006. Though the body surfaced on 13-07-2006, post-mortem fixed death at 3-4 days prior, aligning with the last-seen timing. The Court held that the “possibility of intervention by another” was negligible because:
   • the secluded sugarcane field was rarely visited,
   • the appellant was absconding immediately thereafter,
   • a uniquely identifiable weapon tied him to the bullet injuries.
3. Section 27 Discovery & Section 106 Burden
   The recovery of the gun, spent cartridges and gold chain was information “leading to discovery”. Because these items were peculiarly within the appellant’s knowledge, his silence attracted an adverse inference.
4. Forensic Nexus
   Ballistic matching of pellets/wads to the specific gun bridged the evidentiary gap. The gun was shown to be recently fired (“signs of discharge”), directly contradicting defence claims of non-use.
5. Conduct Evidence
   Absconding, misleading phone calls (proved via PW-14) and production of the victim’s gold chain indicated a “guilty mind” under Section 8, Evidence Act.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Judgment

• Redefines the practical boundary of the last-seen doctrine. Courts may now rely on it even where the interval is days (not merely hours) provided robust forensic corroboration exists.
• Encourages integration of ballistic science with circumstantial frameworks, emphasising that scientific certainty can cure temporal uncertainty.
• Revitalises Sections 27 & 106 Evidence Act—placing a persuasive burden on accused to explain incriminatory discoveries, especially weapons showing recent discharge.
• Trial-management pointer: prosecutors will likely highlight recovery-cum-ballistic chains to counter defence arguments premised on time-gap or missing eyewitnesses.
• Defence strategy shift: mere denial may be riskier; expert rebuttal or alternative narrative is now vital when weapon linkage is alleged.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Last-Seen Together Doctrine

If A and B are seen together shortly before B’s death and A can’t explain what happened, the Court may infer A’s involvement.

Section 27, Evidence Act

When an accused leads police to discover a fact (e.g., weapon) that only the perpetrator could know, that part of his statement becomes admissible, even if the rest would normally be inadmissible confession.

Section 106, Evidence Act

Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of a person must be explained by that person. Here, why the gun was freshly fired was a fact only Chetan could elucidate.

Ballistic “Signs of Discharge”

Residues, odour or internal markings confirming that a firearm has been fired recently.

Circumstantial Evidence Chain

A collection of individual facts that, when woven together, leave no reasonable alternative other than the accused’s guilt.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Chetan v. State of Karnataka crystalises an important refinement of criminal jurisprudence: the temporal proximity requirement in the last-seen rule is elastic, not rigid. Where rigorous forensic corroboration and unexplained incriminatory discoveries exist, a gap of even several days will not sever the evidentiary chain. The judgment harmonises traditional principles (Sharad Sarda’s five tests) with modern scientific techniques, reiterates the evidentiary value of abscondence and conduct, and underscores that silence under Section 313 can supply the missing link. Future prosecutions relying on circumstantial evidence may thus find a stronger footing, while defence counsel must marshal concrete explanations rather than bare denials when technology points a finger.