An Overview of The Judicial Decisions On

3/12/2018 An overview of the Judicial Decisions on "Last Seen Together" - Legal News / Law News & Articles - Free
ee Legal Helpline - Legal Tips : Legal India
Author Profile
Dr. Mohan Rao Bolla
Ph,D in Law, UGC NET qualified working as Principal, Sri Prasunna College of Law, NR Peta, Kurnool. 518004
An overview of the Judicial Decisions on

“Last Seen Together”
Posted On August 5, 2012 by &filed under Legal Articles (https://www.legalindia.com/category/legal-articles/).
A
n overview of the Judicial Decisions
on ‘Last Seen Together’
– (Dr.) Mohan Rao B., B.Sc., M.L.,[ Ph.D][1] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn1)
“In short our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make
criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing enhance possibilities as good
enough to set the delinquent free arid chopping the logic of preponderant probability to, punish marginal
innocents.”– Justice Krishna Iyer, V.R. [2] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn2)
One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he
is proved to be guilty.[3] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn3) Article 11(1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 provides that everyone charged with a penal offence had the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Presumption of innocence is a human right as envisaged
under Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[4] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-
admin/post-new.php#_ftn4) India is a signatory to the Covenant.[5] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-
new.php#_ftn5) Right to fair trial and presumption of innocence, are the twin essentials of administration of
criminal justice. [6] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn6) Once if a person is held to be not
guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefits of such presumption of innocence which could be interfered
with by the Courts only for compelling reasons and not merely because another view was possible on
appreciation of evidence.’[7] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn7)
The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the State.[8] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-

new.php#_ftn8) Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in
India. The policy has been that let thousand criminals be acquitted one innocent must not be punished. [9]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn9) A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or
merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence
in the case.[10] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn10)
However, with the development of ‘Last seen together,’ principle, the investigation system and the courts have
been a little bit relieved of the burden of proof. When the principle could be invoked, the burden of proof would
be shifted to the accused to explain any intervening facts after the last seen together with the victim of any
criminal offence. In this paper an attempt is made to analyze the principle inter alia with the help of the latest
case law.
https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/ 1/15
3/12/2018 An overview of the Judicial Decisions on "Last Seen Together" - Legal News / Law News & Articles - Free Legal Helpline - Legal Tips : Legal India
Circumstantial Evidence
According to Sir Alfred Wills[11] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn11) the following rules

are to be specially observed relating to circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal
inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the ‘factum probandum’[fact to
be proved]; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence, the best evidence must be adduced
which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts [facts that
lead to indicate guilt] must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon
any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted.
In Arun Bhakta @ Thulu v. State of West Bengal,[12] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn12)

speaking through Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J the Court held that ‘for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that the
crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by direct ocular evidence
by examining before the Court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by
circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or ‘factum probandum’ may be proved indirectly by means of
certain inferences drawn from factum probans, i.e., the evidentiary facts. To put it differently circumstantial
evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely
associated with the facts in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence
of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.’
It was opined that the presence of the accused at the place of the offence or his being seen last with the deceased
were also relevant. This is sometimes referred to as the test of “last seen together” as a piece of circumstantial
evidence.[13] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn13)
Last Seen Together
The theory of ‘last seen together’ is one where two persons are ‘seen together’ alive and after an interval of time,
one of them is found alive and the other dead. If the period between the two is short, presumption as to the
person alive being the author of death of the other can be drawn. Time gap should be such as to rule out
possibility of somebody else committing the crime. Last seen together principle is one of the latest principles
which is taken into consideration in establishing the guilt of the accused. In the absence of eye-witnesses and
tangible evidence, it is the last resort of the prosecution in a murder case – the person last seen with the victim is
presumed to be the murderer, thus, shifting the onus onto the accused to prove otherwise or come up with an
alibi.[14] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn14) The foundation of the theory is based on
principles of probability and cause and connection. Where a fact has occurred with a series of acts, preceding or
accompanying it, it can safely be presumed that the fact was possible as a direct cause of the preceding or
accompanying acts, unless there exists a fact which breaks the chain upon which the inference depends.[15]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn15)
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? There must be something more establishing connectivity between the
accused and the crime! There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between the
event of the accused having been ‘last seen’ with the deceased and the factum of death a rational mind may be
persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused should explain how and in what
circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own the liability for the homicide.[16]
In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, [17] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn17) the accused

respondent was already an accused in another rape case of an 8 yrs. old girl and got acquitted. He went to the
house of deceased Sneha @ Gangu 4 yrs. old. The deceased was then playing near the gate of her house. After the
respondent left the house, no one in that house had seen Gangu alive. There was evidence that the respondent
took Gangu to the shop of Mahadeo, and later to the shop of Motiram, and thereafter to a farm whereon pulses
and cotton were cultivated. He chose that venue for sexually ravishing that little child and smothering her to
death. The spot was pointed out by the respondent [after his arrest] wherefrom the dead body of Gangu was
traced out. The accused could not give any explanation whatsoever for the injuries on his private parts. The
Supreme Court reversed the Lower Courts judgment and convicted the respondent basing on last seen principle
as there was other circumstantial and medical evidence.
In Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala, [18] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn18) the

deceased was taken away from the convent by the appellant under a false pretext and she was last seen alive only
in his company. On the information furnished by the appellant, the jewels of the deceased which were sold by the
appellant, were seized. The Court had convicted the accused for the offence of murder basing on the last seen
together principle but gave the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence under S. 376 as there was no other
incriminating evidence to prove the offence of rape.
In Mohibur Rahman and anr. v. State of Assam, [19] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn19) the

Apex Court considered three pieces of incriminating circumstantial evidence against the main accused Taijuddin
viz., i) the deceased Rahul was last seen in the company of the accused Taijuddin ii) He gave a false explanation
about the whereabouts of the deceased and iii) the accused was having knowledge of the dead body cut into two
pieces (meaning thereby having died an unnatural death on being subjected to deadly violence) being buried-
coupled with the fact of failure on the part of the accused to offer any reasonable explanation of any of the said
circumstances- to hold sufficient to fasten the liability of murder on the accused. The Court on the other hand
held that merely because the other accused/appellant Mohibir was last seen with the deceased a few
unascertainable number of days before the death of the deceased, he cannot be held liable for the offence of
having caused the death of the deceased without any further evidence to establish the crime. Therefore,
Taijuddin’s conviction was upheld and Mohibir was acquitted by the apex court.
In Jaswant Gir v. Punjab[20] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn20) the Apex Court observed

that in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it was not possible to convict the
appellant solely on the basis of the “last-seen” evidence.
In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran[21] the deceased couple arrived in Goa from Mumbai for their honeymoon and
stayed in a hotel. the couple went for sight-seeing at Ozran, Vagator with P.W.13-Vincent, who was the car driver.
He had also taken them for the sight-seeing trip a day earlier as well. However, in the light of the factors that
evidence regarding the recovery of the incriminating materials from the accused persons has been discarded;
that there has been sufficient time gap between the instances when the accused persons were last seen together
with the deceased persons; and in the absence of any other corroborative piece of evidence to complete the chain
of circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused couple, the Apex Court was of the opinion that the accused
have been rightly given the benefit of doubt by the courts below. (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/585040/) It is
interesting to note that the State even on appeal could not prove the case as it merely based on the last seen together
and the other evidence was not convincing.
In Ravindra Reddy v. Shaik Masthan and ors,[22] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn22) A1,

A2 and the deceased were last seen together going on a scooter by PW 9. Later the deceased was found dead. In
pursuance of A1’s confession, knives were recovered from the house of A-3 apart from seizing the Bajaj scooter
from the house of A-1 and A-3. Pursuant to the confession of A-2, shirt and gold chain were recovered. There was
also evidence that the accused had purchased the two knives used for the offence. The trial Court found the
evidence of PW-9 to be cogent and credible and applying the principles of last seen found A-1 and A-2 guilty. The
High Court acquitted the accused but the Supreme Court restored the judgment of the Trial Court as there was
additional evidence besides the evidence of last seen together.
Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v. State of Maharashtra[23] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-

new.php#_ftn23) was a gruesome rape murder case of tiny young girl aged 9 yrs studying 5th class. As the
accused, [a B.A., B.Ed., teacher,] offered fuel wood, the deceased had gone with him together to the Hills. She was
last seen in the company of the deceased and injury on the abdomen and the rope by which the deceased was
strangulated were recovered at the instance of the accused and the fact that the accused had absconded and was
arrested from a place where he was hiding and the presence of blood on his cloth was a relevant factor. The plea
of alibi set up has not been established. Supreme Court speaking through Justice (Dr.) Arijit Pasayat had
confirmed death penalty.
In Anil Kumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police[24] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn24) the

Sessions Court relying primarily on the evidence of P W.2 (P W.1 having turned hostile) and P W.3 the Doctor and
the recovery of the murder weapon, a knife, at the instance of the appellant, and the fact that the deceased and
the appellant had been last seen together in the van, convicted the appellant. The conviction was affirmed by the
High Court. But, the Apex Court held that the Lower Courts conviction could not be sustained as ‘the medical
evidence far from supporting the prosecution story destroys its very substratum.’
In Sk. Yusuf v. West Bengal, [25] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn25) the Supreme Court has
reiterated its observation in State of U.P. v. Satish [26] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn26)
that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and
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. It was held that where there is a long time-
gap between “last seen together” and the crime, and there is the possibility of other persons intervening, it is
hazardous to rely on the theory of “last seen together”[27] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-
new.php#_ftn27). Even if time gap is less and there is no possibility of others intervening, it is safer to look for
corroboration. [28] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn28)
Md.Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar, [29] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn29) was

another ghastly rape murder case of an 8 years old girl. The appellant was working as Mason in the House of Devi
Kant Jha, grand- father of deceased (PW-8); He had sent the deceased Kalyani Kumari to the betel-shop to get
betel. He had proceeded towards the betel-shop few minutes after the deceased left. He was last seen with the
deceased going together on a bicycle. He made a confession leading to the recovery of dead body from a field.
The dead body of Kalyani Kumari had injury on the private parts, her nails were munched and there were marks
of bruises all over the body. The rape and murder by the appellant on the victim girl has been proved by medical
evidence. The Apex Court conceded that it was the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases and confirmed the death penalty.
Interestingly, the judgment of Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J., quoted no judicial precedents at all.[30]
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. The State of Mahrashtra, [31] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-

new.php#_ftn31) was yet another brutal, gruesome rape murder case of a 3 year old girl. The accused had taken
the victim Vandana from her home on the pretext of purchasing her biscuits. Neither Vandana nor the accused
returned to the house. The accused was seen with the deceased at the bus stand. Thereafter, the nude body of
Vandana was found in the field, the next day. The Apex Court held that on the basis of the `last seen together’
theory and other direct and circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond
any reasonable doubt. The Court opined that the accused had committed the crime in the most brutal manner
and, thereafter, he opted not to explain any circumstances and just took up the plea of false implication, which is
unbelievable and unsustainable. The Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment of the High
Court confirming the death penalty. Thus, the Courts have been requiring the accused to explain any intervening
fact after the last seen together with the deceased whenever there was medical or other evidence corroborating with
the last seen together.
In Shanmughan v. State of Kerala[32] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn32) the victim Raji

was sleeping on the fateful day in the bed room with her husband- the appellant. There was evidence of mal-
treatment of the deceased by the appellant. Nobody was present in the bed room where the appellant and the
deceased were sleeping as husband and wife. The victim admittedly screamed at about 2 a.m. That attracted the
inmates of the house to rush to the bed room to find the victim dead as a result of administering of poison. This
was not in dispute. The victim died of cyanide poison which is a highly corrosive poison. The presence of
lacerated wounds on the lips, contusions in the ear and abrasions in the chest clearly shew that some force was
used while administering the poison. Without any force these injuries could not be there in a case of suicidal
poison. The injuries were fresh injuries and cannot be sustained by fall on a hard substance. PW 7 also deposed
that the injuries could be because of forcible administration of poison. At the time of his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C also, the attention of the accused – appellant was specifically drawn by the trial court to the injuries on
the deceased. To that the appellant did not give any answer. Therefore, taking all these facts and also the
concurrent findings of the two courts, the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere in the appeal. The appeal
was accordingly dismissed.
In Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/shyamal-ghosh-vs-state-of-west-

bengal.html),[33] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn33) there were eye-witnesses who had
seen the scuffling between the deceased and the accused on demand of money and the strangulation of the
deceased by the accused persons and also the loading of the mutilated body parts of the deceased contained in
gunny bags into Maruti Van. Evidence establishing the ‘lastseen together’ theory and the fact that after altercation
and strangulation of the deceased which was witnessed by PW8, PW17 and PW19, the body of the deceased was
recovered in pieces in presence of the witnesses, have been fully established. To a very limited extent, it is a case
of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has proved the complete chain of events. The gap between the
time when the accused persons were last seen with the deceased and the discovery of his mutilated body was
quite small and the possible inference would be that the accused are responsible for commission of the murder of
the deceased. Once the last seen theory comes into play, the onus was on the accused to explain as to what
happened to the deceased after they were together seen alive. The accused persons have failed to render any
reasonable/plausible explanation in this regard and were therefore held liable.
In Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab (http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/jagroop-singh-vs-state-of-punjab.html)[34]

(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn34) the accused Jagsir Singh took the deceased Jagjit Singh
@ Jagga, 10 year old boy, to accompany him for plucking flowers from the field. The boy accompanied him and
did not return home. He was last seen with the accused persons; the accused had made extra-judicial confessions;
the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the field of the father of the accused; the weapon used in the
crime was also recovered on the basis of the confession; the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the weapon
used, spade, was found stained with human blood; and the post mortem report clearly stated that the injuries
found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the seized weapon….. the accused could not give any
explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial. Thus, the
Court convicted the accused basing on last seen principle besides other corroborating evidence.
In Kulvinder Singh & anr v. State of Haryana [35] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn35) as

both the appellants had been seen immediately before the occurrence at the place of occurrence and the
deceased had come there shortly thereafter, the Apex Court observed that the accused had an opportunity to kill
the deceased Amardeep. After the occurrence, they were seen running together from the place of occurrence.
Such a conduct, if examined, with another circumstance i.e. the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants
before an independent witness [Phool Singh (PW.10)], held completed the chain of circumstances pointing to the
guilt of the appellants-accused.
In the recent Arvindkumar Anupalal Poddar v. State of Maharashtra[36] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-

new.php#_ftn36) case, the deceased and the accused were last seen together on 06.12.2001. Later, body of the
deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant. The recovery of knife from the place of occurrence, the
frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused, the theory of the deceased having run away from the
matrimonial home not properly explained by the appellant apart from the fact that no steps were taken by him to
trace his wife, the weapon used, namely, the knife containing blood stains, that the nature of injuries found on
the body of the deceased, the death was homicidal and that the injuries could have been caused with the weapon
marked in the case , that the appellant wanted to flee from the town itself and that the clothes seized from the
appellant were found containing human blood- established the guilt of the appellant. The Apex Court quoted
Prithipal Singh & ors v. State of Punjab [37] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn37) [an
illegal detention and death case] where it has been held that ‘a fact which is especially in the knowledge of any
person then the burden of proving that fact is upon him and that it is impossible for the prosecution to prove
certain facts particularly within the knowledge of the accused.’ The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of
the accused.
Conclusion
By the adoption of the last seen together, there has been the tendency of the Courts, especially the Apex Court has
been going perhaps towards “…..adjusting the balance of justice and ensuring that there will be no ‘excessive
solicitude’ reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is
a false dilemma.[38] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn38) Only reasonable doubts belong
to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then, break down and lose credibility with the
community. The evil of acquitting a guilty person lightheartedly as a learned author (Glanville Williams) has
sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If
unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to
a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicated ‘persons’ and more severe punishment of
those who are found guilty…… our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated by
the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing
enhance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent free arid chopping the logic of preponderant
probability to, punish marginal innocents…”
Therefore, basing on the above analysis it may be stated that ‘last seen together’ principle has been applied by the
Courts so cautiously that unless there is corroborating and circumstantial evidence, conviction has not been
given. However, the principle helps the Courts to shift the burden of proof to the accused and the accused might
establish an interface in the chain of circumstantial evidence. Otherwise, he will not get any benefit of doubt.
The latest tendency of the Court thus, is to take the aid of Sections 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, in addition to
the ‘last seen together’ principle to hold an accused person guilty whenever there is no evidence available. [39]
*****
[1]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref1) Principal, Manair College of Law, Khammam,
mohanraobolla9@gmail.com
[2]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref2) Shivaji Sahebrao
Bobade & Anr vs State of Maharashtra[2] on 27 August, 1973 1973 AIR 2622, 1974
SCR (1) 489
[3]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref3) S. Ganesan v. Rama S. Raghuraman
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1090129/)(2011) 2 SCC 83
[4] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref4) Entry into force 23 March 1976.
Quoted in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr decided on 9 July, 2008, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1584447/
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1584447/)
[5]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref5) See also K.G. Kannabiran,’ Safegaurd
the rights of the accused and also Recommendations of the Malimath Committee on reforms of
Criminal Justice System (http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2003/malimath-recommendations.htm),’
http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2003/malimath.htm
(http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2003/malimath.htm)
[6]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref6) Swatanter Kumar, J . in Govindaraju
@ Govinda v. State Rep. by Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr.
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/107929320/
(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/107929320/) (2012) 4 SCC 722
[7]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref7) Supreme Court of India A.K. Patnaik
J, Swatanter Kumar, J decided on 15 March, 2012.http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/107929320/
(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/107929320/), (2012) 4 SCC 722
[8]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref8) Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of
Ajmer, Bose, Vivian Supreme Court of India decided on 12 March, 1956
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1032822/ (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1032822/) , AIR 1956 SC 404,
1956 SCR 199. See also Chandrasekharan Pillai, Dr. K.N., ‘Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases and
The Supreme Court— New Trends’, (2003) 8 Scc (Jour) 49.
[9]
(http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref9) “It is better that ten guilty should
escape than that one innocent person should suffer,” British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–
1873) made this argument over a century ago in a speech before the British Parliament quoted by
James Fieser ‘Capital Punishment, From Moral Issues that Divide Us’
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/7-cap-pun.htm (http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/7-cap-
pun.htm)
[1
0] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref10) Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab
(http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/jagroop-singh-vs-state-of-punjab.html) /case
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/118148233/case) decided by Supreme Court of India on 20 July, 2012,
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/118148233
1] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref11) “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI)
[1 [1
2] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref12) Supreme Court of India
decided the on 5 December, 2008 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/768382/
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/768382/) , 2009-1-L.W. (Crl.) 573
[1
3] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref13) Prof. V.Nageswara Rao, opinion
expressed on the Last Seen Principle at www.lawyersclubofindia.org
[1
4] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref14) ‘SC uses ‘last seen with’
theory to convict killer,’ Times of India, Oct 26, 2006 , Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite vs State of
Maharashtra, decided by Supreme Court of India on 19 October, 2006
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1160791/ (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1160791/),
[2006 (10) SCALE
[1
5] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref15) Delhi High Court Deepak Chadha v.
State decided on 20 January, 2012, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/193001449/
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/193001449/) Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog Hon’ble Ms. Justice Pratibha
Rani
[1
6] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref16) Mohibur Rahman and anr. v. State of
Assam Case decided by Supreme Court of India on 21 August, 2002
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1445643 (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1445643), AIR 2002 SC
3064
[1
7] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref17) Decided by Supreme Court of India on
10 December, 1999 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1037935/ (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1037935/) , 2000
(1) ALD Cri 606, JT 1999 (9) SC 513
[1 [1
8] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref18) 2000(5) SCC 197
9] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref19) R.C.Lahoti J., on 21 August,

2002, http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1445643
(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1445643), AIR 2002 SC 3064
[2 [2
0] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref20) (2005) 12 SCC 438
1] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref21) P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.,

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/585040/ (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/585040/),
2007 (3) SCALE 740
[2
2] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref22) http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1071507
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1071507) on 4 August, 2008, http://www.lawyerservices.in/Ravindra-
Reddy-Versus-Shaik-Masthan-and-Others-2008-08-04 (http://www.lawyerservices.in/Ravindra-Reddy-
Versus-Shaik-Masthan-and-Others-2008-08-04)
[2
3] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref23)
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1796205/ (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1796205/), decided on 5
September, 2008, AIR 2009 SC 56
[2
4] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref24) Harjit Singh Bedi, and J.M. Panchal,
Supreme Court of India on 4 August, 2009 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1326224/
5] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref25) 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2365. (S.C.)
[2 [2 [2
6] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref26) 2005 (3) SCC 114
7] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref27) Bodhraj v.
Jammu & Kashmir2003 S.C.C. (Crim) 20: 2002 Cr.L.J. 4664
[2
Ram Reddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh, [2006 (10)
SCC 172] followed in Sirima Narasimha Rao v.Andhra Pradesh,
2010 Cr.L.J. 769;
[2
9] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref29) Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.,
Supreme Court of India, decided on 20 April, 2011, http://Indiankanoon.Org/Doc/625626/
(http://indiankanoon.org/Doc/625626/)
[3 [3
0] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref30) Ibid.
1] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref31) Judgment delivered by

Swatanter Kumar, J., on 29 February, 2012 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/130636232/
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/130636232/) (2012) 4 SCC 37
[3
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/133213887/ (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/133213887/) decided by the
Supreme Court of India on 19 January, 2012 Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, T.S. Thakur
[3
3] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref33) 2012 SCCL.COM 306
(http://supremecourtcaselaw.com/showresult.asp?ID=13291)(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 507 of
2007, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/32039060/ (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/32039060/)
[3
http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/jagroop-singh-vs-state-of-punjab.html
(http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/jagroop-singh-vs-state-of-punjab.html), case decided by Supreme
Court on July 20, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2008, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/118148233/
[3
5] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref35) Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. Supreme Court
Of India Decided On 11 April, 2011 Http://Indiankanoon.Org/Doc/1797027/
[3
6] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref36) Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla,
J., Supreme Court of India decided on 26 July, 2012 http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/60317361/
(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/60317361/)
[3
7] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref37) 2012 (1) SCC 10. Decided by the
Supreme Court on 4 November, 2011 http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/342168/
[3
8] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref38) Krishnaiyer, V.R. Shivaji Sahebrao
Bobade & Anr v. State of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973 1973 AIR 2622, 1974 SCR (1) 489
[3
9] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref39) See Prithipal Singh &
Ors v. State of Punjab 2012 (1) SCC 10. Decided by the Supreme Court on 4 November,
2011 http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/342168/
Share this:
 (https://api.whatsapp.com/send?
text=An%20overview%20of%20the%20Judicial%20Decisions%20on%20%22Last%20Seen%20Together%22
https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legalindia.com%2Fan-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together%2F)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?share=facebook&nb=1)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?share=twitter&nb=1)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?share=linkedin&nb=1)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?share=pinterest&nb=1)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?share=reddit&nb=1)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?share=tumblr&nb=1)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?share=skype&nb=1)
 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/#print)
Like this:
Loading...
Related
D
ifferent Kinds of Delay in Death sentence: Dual Theories of Adjudication
Evidences & Witnesses punishment (https://www.legalindia.com/the...
under the Indian (https://www.legalindia.com/del... of-adjudication/)
Evidence Act in-death-sentence-dual- March 9, 2012
(https://www.legalindia.com/dif... punishment/) In "Legal Articles"
kinds-of-evidences-witnesses- January 14, 2012
under-the-indian-evidence-act/) In "Legal Articles"
July 28, 2012
In "Legal Articles"
T
ags: Alfred Wills (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/alfred-wills/)
burden of proof (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/burden-of-proof/)
circumstance of last seen together (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/circumstance-of-last-seen-together/)
criminal jurisprudence (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/criminal-jurisprudence/)
development of Last seen together principle (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/development-of-last-seen-together-principle/)

evidence corroborating with the last seen together (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/evidence-corroborating-with-the-last-seen-together/)
Evidence establishing the lastseen together theory (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/evidence-establishing-the-lastseen-together-theory/)
evidence of last seen together (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/evidence-of-last-seen-together/)
fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/fundamental-principles-of-criminal-jurisprudence/)
Glanville Williams (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/glanville-williams/)
Judicial Decisions on Last Seen Together (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/)
JUSTICE KRISHNA IYER (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/justice-krishna-iyer/)
last seen theory (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/last-seen-theory/)
Last Seen Together (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/last-seen-together/)
last seen together as a piece of circumstantial evidence (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/last-seen-together-as-a-piece-of-circumstantial-evidence/)
Last seen together principle (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/last-seen-together-principle/)
last seen together theory (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/last-seen-together-theory/)
last-seen together evidence (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/last-seen-together-evidence/)
principles of criminal jurisprudence (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/principles-of-criminal-jurisprudence/)
Sections 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/sections-106-of-the-indian-evidence-act/)
Sir Alfred Wills (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/sir-alfred-wills/)
test of last seen together (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/test-of-last-seen-together/)
theory of last seen together (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/theory-of-last-seen-together/)
2 Responses to “An overview of the Judicial Decisions on “Last Seen

Together””
dr.g.balakrishnan phd ML (http://facebook)

good piece.
yr conclusion with Glanville Williams is indeed appropriate.

Reply (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?replytocom=35485#respond)
April 1st, 2015 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/#comment-35485)
chandru sharma (http://9820304320)

this indeed is a masterly presentation of the principle and clearly makes out the premise. thanks a lot dr.rao.
Reply (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/?replytocom=20487#respond)
August 11th, 2012 (https://www.legalindia.com/an-overview-of-the-judicial-decisions-on-last-seen-together/#comment-20487)
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment
Name *
Email *
Website
45F30BnMovLR * Copy This Password *
* Type Or Paste Password Here *
Post Comment
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
Search Search
(http://thetarget-book.com)
Send News & Articles

Send your News & Articles to Publish in this website. For sending Articles & News CLICK HERE
(https://www.legalindia.com/contact/send-articles)
(https://www.pravakta.com/feed/) िह ी लेख व ा.कॉम से

ां मार के बाद अब ीलंका म मुसलमान बौ ों के िनशाने पर ों? (https://www.pravakta.com/after-the-myanmar-why-
now-on-the-target-of-muslim-buddhists-in-sri-lanka/)
िसलचर के सं रण (https://www.pravakta.com/remembrances-of-silchar/)
म ई र को जानता ं (https://www.pravakta.com/i-know-god/)
भारत को सी रया न बनने द … (https://www.pravakta.com/dont-let-india-to-become-syria/)
अिव ा व िढ़यों से पिठत समाज भी ई रीय ान वेद एवं वेदो -स -धम की उपे ा करता है
(https://www.pravakta.com/the-society-which-is-studied-with-ignorance-and-stereotypes-is-also-god-
knowledge-ignores-vedas-and-vedok-satya-dharma/)
स ाथ काश वैिदक सािह का मुख होने सिहत वतमान आधुिनक युग का सवािधक तकसंगत धम है
(https://www.pravakta.com/satyartha-prakash-with-the-main-text-of-vedic-literature-is-the-most-rational-
religious-scripture-of-the-present-modern-era/)
गीता का कमयोग और आज का िव , भाग-66 (https://www.pravakta.com/karma-yoga-of-geeta-and-todays-world-part-
66/)
(https://www.pravakta.com/news/feed/) िह ी समाचार व ा.कॉम से

चारा घोटाले के एक मामले म लालू साद दोषी, जग ाथ िम बरी (https://www.pravakta.com/news/lalu-in-jail/)
वैि क ापार म भारत का योगदान बढ़ाने को ितब : भु (https://www.pravakta.com/news/prabhu-on-economic/)
दोहरे ह ाकां ड म 18 दोिषयों को उ कैद (https://www.pravakta.com/news/imprisonment-for-murder/)
उ र दे श म लखीमपुर खीरी रहा सबसे ठं डा (https://www.pravakta.com/news/lakhimpur-is-coldest-in-up/)
10 मतों से िगरा िवप का अिव ास ाव (https://www.pravakta.com/news/bill-in-chhatisgarh-assembly/)
ायपािलका से इं साफ िमलने की उ ीद : लालू (https://www.pravakta.com/news/lalu-on-chara-scam/)
आतंकवािदयों का समथन बंद करने पर पाक से शां ित वाता – रावत (https://www.pravakta.com/news/rawat-on-terrorist/)
Recent Comment
saurabh on Rights Of Students Under Right To Information Act 2005 (https://www.legalindia.com/rights-
students-right-information-act-2005/#comment-36482)
Sahib Singh on Discussion Forum on Banking & Insurance Laws (https://www.legalindia.com/discussion-
forum-on-banking-insurance-laws/#comment-36481)
Sid on WILL under Indian Law (https://www.legalindia.com/will-under-indian-law/#comment-36480)
9616439953 on Cruelty Against Husband in India (https://www.legalindia.com/cruelty-against-husband-in-
india/#comment-36479)
hogan donna (http://www.hoganoutletsonline.it) on What is Consortium? (https://www.legalindia.com/what-
is-consortium/#comment-36477)
Legal India
105,434 likes
Like Page Contact Us
Be the first of your friends to like this
Subscribe Legal India
Enter your email address here to Subscribe Legal News on your Mail
Subscribe
More than 10thousand already Subscribed.
For NewsLetter Register Here (https://www.legalindia.in/login?action=register)
Tweets by @legal_india
LEGAL INDIA @legal_india
Delhi High Court asks DSIIDC to pay Rs 10L compensation to kin of victim manual scavengers
legalindia.com/news/delhi-hig…
Embed View on Twitter
© Legal India Developed & maintained by Manu Info Solutions Pvt Ltd (//www.manuinfosolutions.com)
53 queries in 0.447 seconds.

An Overview of The Judicial Decisions On - Last Seen Together

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

An Overview of The Judicial Decisions On - Last Seen Together

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3/12/2018 An overview of the Judicial Decisions on "Last Seen Together" - Legal News / Law News & Articles - Free

ee Legal Helpline - Legal Tips : Legal India

on ‘Last Seen Together’

– (Dr.) Mohan Rao B., B.Sc., M.L.,[ Ph.D][1] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn1)

The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the State.[8] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-

According to Sir Alfred Wills[11] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn11) the following rules

In Arun Bhakta @ Thulu v. State of West Bengal,[12] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn12)

Last Seen Together

In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, [17] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn17) the accused

In Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala, [18] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn18) the

In Mohibur Rahman and anr. v. State of Assam, [19] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn19) the

In Jaswant Gir v. Punjab[20] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn20) the Apex Court observed

In Ravindra Reddy v. Shaik Masthan and ors,[22] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn22) A1,

Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v. State of Maharashtra[23] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-

In Anil Kumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police[24] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn24) the

Md.Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar, [29] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn29) was

Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. The State of Mahrashtra, [31] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-

In Shanmughan v. State of Kerala[32] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn32) the victim Raji

In Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/shyamal-ghosh-vs-state-of-west-

In Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab (http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/jagroop-singh-vs-state-of-punjab.html)[34]

In Kulvinder Singh & anr v. State of Haryana [35] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftn35) as

In the recent Arvindkumar Anupalal Poddar v. State of Maharashtra[36] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-

1] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref11) “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI)

9] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref19) R.C.Lahoti J., on 21 August,

1] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref21) P.P. NAOLEKAR, J.,

5] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref25) 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2365. (S.C.)

1] (http://www.legalindia.in/wp-admin/post-new.php#_ftnref31) Judgment delivered by

development of Last seen together principle (https://www.legalindia.com/tag/development-of-last-seen-together-principle/)

2 Responses to “An overview of the Judicial Decisions on “Last Seen

dr.g.balakrishnan phd ML (http://facebook)

yr conclusion with Glanville Williams is indeed appropriate.

chandru sharma (http://9820304320)

45F30BnMovLR * Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Send News & Articles

(https://www.pravakta.com/feed/) िह ी लेख व ा.कॉम से

(https://www.pravakta.com/news/feed/) िह ी समाचार व ा.कॉम से

Like Page Contact Us

Be the first of your friends to like this

Subscribe Legal India

For NewsLetter Register Here (https://www.legalindia.in/login?action=register)

Embed View on Twitter

53 queries in 0.447 seconds.

Вам также может понравиться