Supreme Court explains the law relating to last seen theory

 Circumstance Two: Last Seen Theory

15. The next circumstance that is to consider is the last seen theory. It is well established that this is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis of conviction.7 We may further refer to certain judgments that expand upon the application of this theory.

15.1 In Ravasaheb v. State of Karnataka   MANU/SC/0248/2023 : 2023:INSC:238 : (2023) 5 SCC 391, a three Judge Bench (which included two of us, Nath and Karol JJ.) observed thus:

29. On its own, last seen theory is considered to be a weak basis for conviction. However, when the same is coupled with other factors such as when the deceased was last seen with the Accused, proximity of time to the recovery of the body of the deceased, etc. The Accused is bound to give an explanation Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. If he does not do so, or furnishes what may be termed as wrong explanation or if a motive is established - pleading securely to the conviction of the Accused closing out the possibility of any other hypothesis, then a conviction can be based thereon. [Satpal v. State of Haryana [Satpal v. State of Haryana,   MANU/SC/0492/2018 : 2018:INSC:436 : (2018) 6 SCC 610] and Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. [Ram Gopal v. State of M.P.,   MANU/SC/0139/2023 : 2023:INSC:133 : (2023) 5 SCC 534]]

[See also: Sanjay v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0312/2025 : 2025:INSC:317]

15.2 The application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, doesn't absolve the prosecution of its duty to establish its case against the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt. [See: Sawal Das v. State of Bihar   MANU/SC/0201/1974 : 1974:INSC:4 : (1974) 4 SCC 193 and Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra   MANU/SC/0136/2021 : 2021:INSC:136 : (2021) 5 SCC 626]

15.3 In applying the last-seen theory, Courts should keep in mind the totality of the circumstances, or the case put forward by the prosecution. In other words, also to be seen is, what preceded and followed the Accused person being last seen with the deceased. [See: Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar   MANU/SC/0505/2021 : 2021:INSC:379 : (2022) 11 SCC 800]

15.4 In Veerendra v. State of M.P.   MANU/SC/0641/2022 : 2022:INSC:565 : (2022) 8 SCC 668, referring to Nizam (supra) it was observed that when the time between the 'last seen' and the 'time of occurrence' is significant, conviction thereon would not be advisable or sustainable.

15.5 The converse of the above is that the theory comes into play "where the time gap between the point of time when the Accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the Accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible." [See: Bodhraj v. State of J&K MANU/SC/1463/2002 : (2002) 8 SCC 45, State of U.P. v. Shyam Behari   MANU/SC/1093/2009 : 2009:INSC:432 : (2009) 15 SCC 548 and Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/1349/2024 : 2024:INSC:987 : (2025) 2 SCC 399]

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.