A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The appeal concerns conviction and acquittal arising from the abduction, ransom demand and subsequent death of Suhash on 15 January 2006. The prosecution’s case rested wholly on circumstantial evidence principally the “last seen together” evidence of PW-18, allegedly incriminating disclosures by juvenile co-accused, and recovery at the instance of one accused of a blood-stained blade, nails and a T-shirt.
The Trial Court convicted Ashok Bhoi under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC while acquitting Vikash Khubwani. The High Court reversed conviction of Ashok and confirmed acquittal of Vikash. Before the Supreme Court the State challenged those acquittals. The Court reiterated the settled principle that in circumstantial cases the prosecution must prove a complete chain of events leading to only one irresistible conclusion guilt and that “last seen together” evidence, though it shifts the evidentiary burden under Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, cannot alone sustain conviction unless the rest of the incriminating circumstances are cogent and clinching.
The recovery of incriminating articles after two days, absence of forensic or STD-PCO evidence to link the ransom call, non-examination of the PCO/STD operator and lack of any direct evidence connecting Vikash rendered the prosecution case weak. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s appellate appreciation and dismissed the appeals.
Keywords: Circumstantial Evidence; Last seen together; Section 106, Evidence Act; Sections 364-A & 302 IPC; Burden of proof.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi Etc.
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1258–1259 of 2015 (arising from CRA No. 601 of 2007 and AA No. 1 of 2009).
iii) Judgement Date: 27 February 2025.
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.
v) Quorum: Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
vi) Author: Bench judgment (per curiam; reported by Registry).
vii) Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1785 : 2025 INSC 256.
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302, 364-A IPC; Section 106, Indian Evidence Act; Section 313 Cr.P.C.; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None indicated in judgment.
x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law; Evidence Law; Procedure (Cr.P.C.); Forensic Evidence issues.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The prosecution alleged that on 15 January 2006 the minor Suhash was abducted and a ransom call demanding Rs. 2,00,000 was received that night. The father lodged FIR the same night. Two juvenile suspects were first detained; pursuant to their statements the dead body was discovered on 17 January 2006 in an abandoned house. The investigative trail implicated the respondents: Ashok was arrested and, according to prosecution, led to recovery of blood-stained blade, nails and a T-shirt from the room where the body lay; Vikash was arrested later on co-accused disclosures.
At trial the Sessions Court convicted Ashok for offences under Sections 364-A (kidnapping for ransom) and 302 IPC (murder) and acquitted Vikash. On appeals the High Court allowed Ashok’s appeal and dismissed the State’s appeal against Vikash’s acquittal. The Supreme Court’s review focused on whether the circumstantial evidence established a complete, unbroken chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, and whether legal safeguards such as examination of STD-PCO records, forensics on recovered articles, and scrutiny of the last-seen evidence were properly applied.
The Court emphasised the dual propositions that while Section 106, Evidence Act shifts onus to an accused with special knowledge, that shift is evidentiary and does not relieve the prosecution of proving other links in the chain beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal therefore required reassessment of the quality of the last-seen testimony, the credibility of recoveries made two days later, and the absence of direct or corroborative evidence linking Vikash to the crime.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
Uttamlal (PW-1) was the informant; his son Suhash failed to return on 15.01.2006. A ransom call was received on Swapnil’s mobile demanding Rs. 2 lakhs at about 9 p.m.; FIR lodged at 10:45 p.m. Two juveniles (Jivrakhan and Ukesh) were initially taken into custody; on disclosure by Jivrakhan the dead body was recovered on 17.01.2006 in an abandoned house. Investigation led to arrest of Ashok Bhoi, at whose instance police allegedly recovered a blood-stained blade, nails and a T-shirt from the room where body was found.
Vikash was arrested on co-accused disclosure. PW-18 deposed he had seen the deceased with Ashok at 6–7 p.m. on the date of incident the vital last-seen link. The prosecution did not examine the STD-PCO operator or produce direct forensic linkage of recovered articles to the deceased or to accused beyond blood staining. The Trial Court convicted Ashok while acquitting Vikash. On appeal the High Court re-evaluated circumspectly and acquitted Ashok and confirmed Vikash’s acquittal.
The State challenged the appellate view before this Court. The record shows delay of two days between incident and recovery, lack of PCO evidence to trace ransom call, and no eyewitness to the homicidal act.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether the prosecution, relying on circumstantial evidence, proved an unbroken chain of circumstances excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused?
ii. Whether “last seen together” evidence (PW-18) coupled with recovery at the accused’s instance suffices to convict absent corroborative proof such as PCO/forensic linkage?
iii. Whether the burden under Section 106, Evidence Act shifts the onus to the accused in a manner that can sustain conviction where prosecution evidence is otherwise weak?
iv. Whether acquittal of Vikash was justified in absence of any material connecting him to the offence?
F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The State submitted that the High Court misappreciated evidence and erred in overturning conviction of Ashok, arguing that PW-18’s last-seen evidence together with recovery at accused’s instance formed a sufficient chain.
ii. It was urged that the presence of incriminating articles recovered on disclosure and the sequence beginning with juvenile disclosures ought to have been treated cumulatively to sustain guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. Counsels for respondents contended that prosecution failed to lead cogent corroborative evidence: the STD-PCO operator was not examined to link the ransom call; recoveries after two days lacked reliability; no eyewitness saw the crime; there was no forensic proof connecting recovered articles incontrovertibly to the accused or deceased.
ii. It was argued that mere last-seen testimony under Section 106 cannot substitute for a complete circumstantial chain and that reasonable doubt persists.
H) JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s careful appraisal. The Court observed that the prosecution case was entirely circumstantial with no eyewitness to the killing and substantial lacunae in investigation and proof. PW-18’s testimony established only that Ashok was seen with the deceased in the evening; this evidence shifts an evidentiary burden under Section 106, Indian Evidence Act but does not by itself prove guilt. The Court emphasised that recoveries made two days after the incident the blade, nails and blood-stained T-shirt are of doubtful value without contemporaneous forensic analysis or chain-of-custody clarity.
The non-examination of the STD/PCO operator to authenticate the ransom call and the absence of any evidence linking Vikash to the offence undermined the prosecution’s case. Citing settled law principles the Court reiterated that in circumstantial cases the prosecution must establish a “chain” where each circumstance is cogent and the cumulative effect precludes any inference but guilt. The Court found that those conditions were not satisfied and therefore the High Court rightly acquitted Ashok and confirmed Vikash’s acquittal. The appeals were dismissed.
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The operative ratio is that in circumstantial prosecutions the prosecution must prove, by cogent and clinching evidence, an unbroken chain of circumstances from which the only rational inference is the accused’s guilt.
Last-seen evidence can shift evidentiary burden under Section 106 but cannot alone sustain conviction; the prosecution must independently discharge the onus to prove other inculpatory links (forensic links, contemporaneous witnesses, reliable recoveries, telephone records) so that the net of circumstances excludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt.
Where recoveries are remote in time and crucial witnesses/operators are not examined, the resultant lacunae render conviction unsafe.
b. OBITER DICTA
The Court reiterated the caution that justice must not be sterilised by fanciful doubts i.e., strong suspicion should not be preferred to cogent proof but also affirmed that suspicion, however strong, does not take the place of proof.
The judgment emphasises investigative best practices: examine phone/PCO operators, ensure prompt recovery with clear chain of custody and forensic testing, and avoid reliance on solitary last-seen testimony absent corroboration. These remarks, though not strictly necessary to decide the appeal, function as guidance to trial and investigating agencies.
c. GUIDELINES
i. Investigating agencies should secure and produce STD/PCO records and operators where ransom/telephonic evidence is alleged.
ii. Recoveries must be made promptly with documented chain of custody and forensic testing to render them reliable.
iii. Circumstantial cases require that each proved circumstance be cogent; trial courts must test whether alternative hypotheses remain viable.
iv. Section 106 should be applied as an evidentiary device; courts must ensure prosecution still establishes other links beyond reasonable doubt.
v. Trial courts should scrutinise delay between incident and recovery and demand explanations for lacunae in investigation before drawing adverse inferences.
I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The decision is a firm restatement of classical principles governing circumstantial evidence and the limits of last-seen proof under Section 106. Practically, it underscores that investigative omissions (non-production of PCO records, delayed recoveries lacking forensic backbone) can be fatal to prosecution. For practitioners the ruling is a reminder to assemble corroborative electronic and forensic evidence where available, to preserve chain of custody, and to test last-seen witnesses rigorously.
The Court balanced the societal interest in punishing the guilty against the foundational rule that conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt, not on suspicion or partial inferences; the High Court’s acquittal was therefore sustained as a legally sound exercise of appellate fact-finding and law application.
J) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i. The State of Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi Etc., [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1785 : 2025 INSC 256.
b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (provisions Sections 302, 364-A).
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (provision Section 313).
iii. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (provision Section 106).
