CASE DETAILS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Held: The ‘last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt – In the present case, there is no defi nitive evidence of last seen and that theory itself is in doubt – Also, there is a long time-gap between the alleged last seen and the recovery of the body – Further, there is major discrepancy in the charge framed and the statement of the witnesses- the specifi c allegation that co-accused was the one who had taken away the deceased from his house, whereas during deposition the deceased’s wife and his brother stated that it was the appellant who had taken away the deceased is enough to raise doubts with regard to the veracity and authenticity of such statements – Also, the fact that the deceased, late at night, agreed to go to the house of the appellant, when seen in the backdrop of the allegation that there was strong animosity between the two, appears to be highly improbable – Further, it does not appear that the deceased’s family took any steps to fi nd out as to where the deceased had gone despite being missing for more than two days – The deceased’s wife even testifi ed that relations between the parties were cordial, and did not hint at animosity – Thus, in the absence of other corroborative pieces 55 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 12 S.C.R. of evidence, it cannot be said that the chain of circumstances is so complete that the only inference that could be drawn is the guilt of the appellant – Unsafe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on such evidence, where the chain is incomplete – Presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused and when doubts emanate, the benefi t accrues to the accused, and not the prosecution – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 13, 15, 16 and 17] Practice and Procedure – Acquittal – Interference by appellate Court: Held: An appellate court, in the case of an acquittal, must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused – When two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be leaned on – Criminal Law. [Para 18] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES State of Rajasthan v.

Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 501 – held not applicable. Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715 : [2014] 3 SCR 744; Nizam v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550 : [2015] 10 SCR 786; Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 6 SCC 742; Laxman Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 6 SCC 399; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630; Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022) 8 SCC 440 – relied on.