The Allahabad High Court last seen theory ruling has led to the acquittal of two men convicted in a 1986 murder case. The Lucknow Bench held that prosecutors failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated that the “last seen together” theory alone cannot support a conviction in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Mrs. Babita Rani allowed Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1989 and the connected Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1989. The Bench set aside the trial court’s conviction and ordered the release of the confiscated motorcycle. The Court reserved its judgment on March 26, 2026, and delivered it on May 27, 2026.
Background
The case arose from the alleged murder of Deepak Kumar. On November 2, 1986, he reportedly left on a Rajdoot motorcycle with accused Laxmi Kant @ Pappu. The next day, police recovered his body near Jamaur Culvert in Shahjahanpur. Prosecutors claimed that Deepak’s alleged relationship with the accused’s sister motivated the murder.
Investigators filed charges against four people. On March 4, 1989, the trial court acquitted Natthu Lal and Srikant. However, it convicted Laxmi Kant @ Pappu and Sunil Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The court sentenced both men to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹5,000 each. It also ordered confiscation of the motorcycle allegedly used in the crime.
The convicted accused challenged the judgment through Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1989. Motorcycle owner Puttoo Lal Trivedi separately challenged the confiscation order through Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1989.
Arguments Before the Court
The appellants argued that the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. They contended that investigators failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to their guilt. They also highlighted contradictions in witness testimony and questioned the prosecution’s motive theory.
Puttoo Lal Trivedi argued that no evidence showed his motorcycle was used in the offence. Therefore, he claimed the confiscation order lacked legal basis.
The State defended the conviction. It relied on the “last seen together” evidence, the alleged motive, and surrounding circumstances to support the trial court’s findings.
High Court Finds Serious Gaps in Evidence
After reviewing the evidence, the High Court identified several weaknesses in the prosecution case.
The Bench noted that prosecutors heavily relied on testimony that the deceased was last seen with one accused. However, they failed to examine an independent witness who allegedly accompanied the deceased during the relevant period. The Court found this omission significant.
The judges also noticed inconsistencies in witness statements. These inconsistencies related to the sequence of events, the motorcycle involved, and information about the deceased’s movements.
On the issue of motive, the Court found no reliable proof that the accused’s sister wrote the alleged love letters. The prosecution also failed to establish the alleged relationship. The Court emphasized that suspicion and rumours cannot replace legal evidence.
The Bench rejected the testimony of a witness who claimed to have repeatedly seen the accused with the deceased before the incident. It found the account improbable in light of the surrounding facts.
The Court also refused to rely on an alleged dying declaration based on a Section 161 CrPC statement after the witness turned hostile during trial.
‘Last Seen Together’ Theory Not Enough
The Court reiterated the principles governing circumstantial evidence cases. Each circumstance must be firmly proved. Together, the circumstances must form a complete chain that points only to the guilt of the accused.
The Bench stressed that the Allahabad High Court last seen theory ruling follows settled law. The “last seen together” principle forms only one link in the chain of evidence. Courts cannot base a conviction solely on that circumstance unless other reliable evidence rules out every reasonable possibility of innocence.
The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Chetan v. State of Karnataka. These decisions clarify that the theory becomes significant only when the time gap between the accused being seen with the deceased and the discovery of the body is extremely short.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that prosecutors failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. As a result, the conviction could not stand.
Appeals Allowed
The High Court allowed both appeals. Since Laxmi Kant @ Pappu died during the proceedings, the appeal against him stood abated. The Court acquitted Sunil Kumar and extended the benefit of doubt to him.
The Bench also allowed Puttoo Lal Trivedi’s appeal. It held that prosecutors failed to prove that the Rajdoot motorcycle was used in the crime. Accordingly, the Court directed authorities to release the motorcycle to its owner.
