ABSCONDENCE AND PRESUMPTION: A JUDICIAL LENS ON POST-CRIME CONDUCT
INTRODUCTION
The case of Chetan vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1568 of 2013) decided by Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court on 30.05.2025, is concerned with the conviction of the Appellant for the murder of Deceased. The conviction of the Appellant in the case was based on circumstantial evidence including the ‘Last Seen Theory’, Forensic Reports, recovery of the murder weapon and other incriminating evidence. The Trial Court evaluated the Appellant under Section 302 (Murder) and Section 404 (Dishonest Misappropriation of Property) of the Indian Penal Code (1860) and the offences under the Arms Act (1959), under Section 25 (Punishment for illegal possession of fire arms) and under Section 27 (Punishment for using Arms). This Appeal was rejected by the Karnataka High Court and the Appellant filed an Appeal to the Supreme Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Appellant was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, for the murder of one Vikram Sinde on the night of 10.7.2006. The Prosecution claimed that the Appellant shot the Deceased from 12 Bore DBBL (Double Barrel Breech Loader) gun owned by his grandfather, over a dispute of Rs.4000/-. Thereafter according to the Prosecution, the Appellant is said to have stolen the gold chain and the mobile of the Deceased. Three days later, the corpse of the Deceased was found dumped in a sugar cane field. Due to decomposition of the body the identification was done by the father through the personal belongings found in the pocket.
The circumstantial evidence on which the conviction was based on the Last Seen Theory corroborated by the recovery of articles, including the murder weapon, the forensic evidence and the conduct of fleeing from justice by the Appellant.
The sentence awarded to the Appellant by the Trial Court was under Sections 302, 404 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 The Arms Act. The High Court has also confirmed this conviction. The Appellant thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court contending that that the evidence before the Court was circumstantial and could not sustain a conviction.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the conviction of the Appellant, on circumstantial evidence is legally sound?
- Whether evidence based on the ‘Last Seen Theory’ and subsequent recoveries conclusively establish the guilt of the Appellant?
- Whether forensic evidence or ballistic evidence serve the purpose to prove the connection of the Appellant with the crime?
ANALYSIS
- Circumstantial Evidence and Last Seen Theory
The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the evidentiary chain must be so complete that only one conclusion can be drawn from it, that the accused committed the offense. It referred five fundamental principles governing such trials laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) namely:
- The facts from which the conclusion is drawn must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to prove the crime.
- The facts proved must be compatible with the guilt of the accused.
- The force of circumstances should be final and decisive.
- All other alternatives should be rejected other than that which is to be proved.
- Chain of evidence must be so exact as not to give a reasonable ground for supposition of innocence.
The Appellant and the Deceased were last seen together in the evening on the day of the murder by multiple witnesses. The Court rejected the contention that the three days gap between being last seen together and the recovery of the body could make the theory untenable, and relied on Sanjay Thakran v. State of Goa (2007) in which the Supreme Court held that a gap could be justified where there was also corroborative evidence.
- Recovery and Forensics Links
The Appellant led to the recovery of the DBBL gun, live cartridges, empty cartridges along with the gold chain and mobile phone of the Deceased. The ballistic examination confirmed:
- The gun was operational.
- The shells had been discharged from the recovered gun.
- Pellets and wads located in the skull of the Deceased matched the weapon.
The gunshot wound was homicidal in nature as per the forensic evidence. As the weapon was not commonly used, it could be traced back to the Appellant’s grandfather. This created a link between the Appellant and the crime by possession of the weapon.
- Absconding
After the incident, the Appellant was absconding for 11 days from 11 July and until 22 July 2006. He also misled the family of the Deceased in believing that he had parted ways with the Deceased earlier that night and not seen him since.
- Investigation
Admitting to some deficiencies in the investigation, the Court ruled they were not enough to render the case of the prosecution without merit. It further added that mere discrepancies in the evidence cannot be a ground for acquitting an accused. The Court also rejected the assertion that the body was unidentifiable because it was decomposed as it was identified by the father of the Deceased through clothes and personal articles.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction under Section 302 and 404 of the IPC and the other sections of the Arms Act as per the Orders of the Trial Court as well as of the High Court. It found that the Prosecution was able to prove a chain of events that were unbroken and consistent to only one rational conclusion, that the Appellant was guilty. The motive, the evidence of Last Seen Theory, absconding, recovery of incriminating articles and the forensic evidence, collectively was sufficient to establish guilt according to the court.
.
BENJAMIN THOMAS
4TH YEAR LAW STUDENT,
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled POCSO Law in India: Key Provisions Every Parent Must Know | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma | can be viewed at the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3_l0H0LGY4