Last seen theory not enough to convict accused: Supreme Court acquits two in Kalaburagi murder case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said the circumstance of “last seen together” does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime, as there must be something more establishing the connectivity between the accused and the crime.

Acquitting two men in a case of killing a woman and burning down her body in 2013 in Kalaburagi, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan said, "It would be too risky to reach the conclusion that the appellants before us are guilty of a serious crime like murder, in their capacity as accomplice, solely on this piece of circumstance of “last seen together."

The complaint was filed by Basanagowda alias Milan, the son of the deceased, alleging her mother's elder brother Kalappa, appellant Anand Jakkappa Pujari alias Gaddadar, Imamsab alias Haneef, and another appellant Mahadev Sidram Hullolli had abducted, murdered and thereafter burnt the body of the deceased to destroy evidence.

The prosecution alleged Kalappa wanted to get rid of his sister and sought help of the other three co-accused including the two appellants as he had borrowed a huge amount from his sister and was not ready and willing to repay the said amount. He was also said to have disposed of one ancestral property and declined to share the sale proceeds.

Considering the appeals by Pujari and Hullolli against the Karnataka High Court's 2021 judgment upholding their 2013 conviction, the bench noted the entire case of the prosecution hinged on circumstantial evidence.

However, in its judgement on April 27, 2026, the court found the appellants had nothing to do with the deceased, they had no axe to grind and no motive to eliminate the deceased.

The prosecution alleged the deceased was seen sitting in Maruti 800 car along with her brother i.e., Kalappa somewhere near Mudhol Shivaji Circle and at that point of time the appellants and the third co-accused are alleged to have got into the said car. Relying on an oral testimony, the prosecution argued that all the four accused persons were last seen in company of the deceased.

"It would be too risky to reach the conclusion that the appellants before us are guilty of a serious crime like murder, in their capacity as accomplice, solely on this piece of circumstance of “last seen together”,'' the bench said.

The court emphasised the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and 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. Even in such a case, the courts should look for some corroboration, it said.

The prosecution also alleged that while the appellants were in police custody, they on their own free will and volition expressed their willingness to point out the place from where the deceased was abducted, later on killed and the body was burnt.

After referring to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the bench said, the discovery evidence of two particular places i.e., the place where the deceased was killed and the place where her dead body was burnt cannot be utilized against the appellants.

"We are now left with only one piece of incriminating circumstance and that is last seen together. We are of the view that it will be too much for us to affirm the conviction of the appellants for a serious offence like murder solely relying on the circumstance of last seen together," the bench said.

The court stressed the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution case “may be true” but it is not that of “must be true”, and there is a long distance to travel between “may be” and “must be”,'' the bench said, setting free the two appellants. Two other accused did not file the appeal.