A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The State of Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi Etc., [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1785 : 2025 INSC 256 (27 February 2025) examines conviction and acquittal in a homicide prosecution founded entirely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution’s case rested on the “last seen together” theory, recoveries allegedly made at the instance of an accused and incriminating calls demanding ransom. The High Court acquitted both respondents one because the prosecution failed to connect him to the crime and the other because the circumstantial chain was incomplete and recovery evidence unreliable and the State’s appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Court reiterates core principles applicable to circumstantial cases:

(i) the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of facts from which guilt is the only reasonable inference;

(ii) Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts a burden of explanation where a person with special knowledge fails to explain incriminating circumstances, but that shift does not relieve the prosecution of proving the entire chain;

(iii) last-seen evidence, standing alone, is insufficient to convict;

(iv) recoveries made after a delay and without corroboration excite suspicion and may not inspire confidence.

Applying these principles to the record, the Court found no reliable evidence linking Vikash Khubwani to the offence and insufficient cogent circumstances against Ashok Bhoi to exclude every other hypothesis. The High Court’s appreciation of evidence and law was affirmed and both appeals dismissed.

Keywords: Circumstantial Evidence; Last seen together; Section 106 Evidence Act; Recovery evidence; Burden of proof.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arises from prosecution of two adults accused in the disappearance and subsequent discovery of the body of Suhash (deceased). The factual matrix begins with a missing-person report and a ransom call to the family. Two juveniles were initially implicated; one of them led police to the corpse and made disclosures that spawned further investigation. The adult respondents were thereafter arrested; in particular, the State relied on evidence that one respondent (Ashok Bhoi) had been last seen with the deceased and that incriminating items a blade, nails and a blood-stained T-shirt were recovered at his instance from the premises where the body was found.

The trial court convicted Ashok under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC while acquitting Vikash Khubwani. On first appeal the High Court set aside the conviction(s) and acquitted both accused. The State challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was required to test whether the prosecution had led cogent, clinching and convincing circumstances so as to eliminate every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt and whether reliance on last-seen evidence and delayed recoveries could sustain a conviction in the absence of corroboration.

The appeal engages settled evidentiary doctrines: the rigour of circumstantial proof, the role and limits of Section 106 Evidence Act in shifting evidentiary onus, and the weight to be attached to recoveries that occur with temporal delay and without independent corroboration. The Court’s analysis focuses on whether the chain of circumstances was complete and whether any incriminating inference against either respondent was irresistible on the record.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Uttamlal (PW-1) reported that his son Suhash went missing on 15.01.2006 after being sent to look for his elder brother. Later that evening a ransom demand of Rs. 2 lakhs was received on the elder son’s mobile. An FIR was lodged at Bhilai police station around 10:45 p.m. Two juveniles Jivrakhan and Ukesh were taken into custody on suspicion; on disclosure by Jivrakhan the deceased’s body was recovered from an abandoned house on 17.01.2006.

Subsequent investigation led to custody of Ashok Bhoi; at his instance police allegedly recovered a blood-stained blade, nails and a blood-stained T-shirt from the room from which the body was recovered. On the basis of co-accused disclosures Vikash Khubwani was also arrested. At trial PW-18 deposed that he saw the deceased with Ashok at about 6–7 p.m. on the day the deceased disappeared. No eye-witness to the killing was produced. The trial court convicted Ashok under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC and acquitted Vikash.

On appeal the High Court acquitted Ashok (and confirmed Vikash’s acquittal), finding that last-seen evidence, the delayed recoveries and the lack of corroboration did not permit conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The State’s appeals to the Supreme Court contested this appreciation.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether last-seen evidence (PW-18’s testimony) together with delayed recoveries can constitute an unbroken chain of circumstances sufficient to convict.
ii. Whether recoveries made at the instance of an accused two days after the incident are reliable and, if unreliable, whether conviction can rest upon them.
iii. Whether Section 106 Evidence Act shifts an evidentiary burden sufficient to sustain conviction absent cogent circumstantial proof.
iv. Whether the prosecution produced any evidence connecting Vikash Khubwani with the offence.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The State urged that the High Court misappreciated evidence and law and that the last-seen identification by PW-18, the ransom call, co-accused disclosures and the recoveries combined to make out a complete chain implicating Ashok.
ii. The prosecution contended that recoveries at the instance of Ashok tied him to the scene and that failure to examine the STD/PCO operator or other formalities should not nullify substantially incriminating material.
iii. The State urged that Vikash’s arrest on disclosures and his association with co-accused sufficed to hold him guilty or at least warrant conviction on the evidence as appreciated by trial court.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The defence for Ashok argued that last-seen testimony alone cannot be the basis for conviction; the accused offered explanations under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and declined to lead evidence, but that silence cannot supplant the prosecution’s duty to establish an unbroken chain.
ii. Defence stressed the delayed recoveries (two days after incident) were suspicious and uncorroborated — no forensic linkage, no independent witness to recovery, no STD/PCO evidence about the ransom call — and hence incapable of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
iii. Vikash’s counsel highlighted total absence of material connecting him to the death.

H) JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittals. The Court emphasised that the prosecution’s case was wholly circumstantial and that the touchstone in such trials is the requirement of an entire chain of circumstances which excludes every hypothesis other than guilt. PW-18’s evidence placing Ashok with the deceased in the evening amounted to last-seen evidence which, by itself, shifts only an evidentiary burden of explanation under Section 106 Evidence Act but does not constitute proof of the substantive offence. The Court noted absence of corroboration for the ransom call importantly the STD/PCO operator was not examined thus weakening the phone-call evidence.

Recovery of incriminating articles two days later at the instance of Ashok was held to be of doubtful reliability; the temporal gap, absence of independent custodial record or strong forensic corroboration eroded confidence in the recovery. The Court reiterated that once last-seen is established the accused must explain, but the prosecution still must establish all other circumstances to form an irresistible chain.

The Court found no material linking Vikash to the offence and therefore sustained his acquittal. For Ashok, given the frailties in recovery evidence and lack of corroboration, the cumulative evidence did not exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The High Court’s careful appraisal was approved and the appeals dismissed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal proposition is that in circumstantial cases prosecution must lead a cohesive, clinching set of facts that point only to the accused’s guilt; last-seen evidence shifts the burden of explanation under Section 106 Evidence Act but cannot, standing alone, convict. Recoveries delayed in time and lacking independent corroboration are inherently suspect. Accordingly, where the circumstantial chain contains gaps or plausible alternative hypotheses, conviction cannot safely follow.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court reaffirmed the maxim that strong suspicion cannot substitute for proof and underlined that while justice should not be sterile to convict guilty persons, the risk of convicting an innocent person cannot be countenanced. The observation that failure to examine STD/PCO sources weakened the ransom-call link functions as guidance for investigative completeness in similar cases.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Last-seen testimony must be followed by independent corroborating circumstances that eliminate other hypotheses.
ii. Recoveries must be timely documented, forensically examined and supported by independent witnesses or contemporaneous records to be reliable.
iii. Where Section 106 Evidence Act shifts an explanation burden, courts should still require the prosecution to prove the complete circumstantial chain.
iv. Investigation should secure PCO/STD records and examine operators when ransom or telephonic evidence is material.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reinforces orthodox criminal evidentiary safeguards in Indian jurisprudence: circumstantial proof demands exceptional care and conviction cannot rest on isolated or uncorroborated links. The judgment is instructive for investigation and prosecution practice where phone evidence, delayed recoveries and last-seen testimony exist, contemporaneous procedural steps (forensic tests, PCO/STD custody records, independent witnesses at recoveries) are indispensable.

The Court’s approach balances the twin imperatives of punishing the guilty and protecting the innocent by insisting on proof rather than presumption, even while acknowledging the social cost of acquitting potentially guilty persons when the evidence is deficient. For practitioners, the case underscores careful forensic continuity, thoroughness in documenting recoveries and the need to close gaps in the chain of circumstances before seeking convictions.

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 — Sections 302, 364-A.
ii. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106.
iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 313 (Cr.P.C.) and general procedural provisions.