Anjan Kumar Sarma &amp; Others Vs. State of Assam
of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded." 19. This Court in Bharat v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 106 , held that the failure of the accused to offer any explanation in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. alone was not sufficient to establish the charge against the accused. In the facts of the present case, the High Court committed an error in holding that in the absence of any satisfactory explanation by the accused the presumption of guilt of the Accused stood un-rebutted and thus the Appellants were liable to be convicted. 20. Mr. R. Venkataramani relied upon Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 570 at p.582 to buttress his submission that the circumstance of last seen together coupled with lack of any satisfactory explanation by the accused is a very strong circumstance on the basis of which the accused can be convicted. It was held by this Court in the above judgment as follows:- "It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a case which satisfies the standards requisite for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence." 21. It is clear from the above that in a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction. The other judgments on this point that are cited by Mr. Venkataramani do not take a different view and, thus, need not be adverted to. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 in support of his submission that the circumstance of last seen together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possibility of any other persons meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening period. It was held in the above judgment as under:- "34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after (sic of) a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straitjacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author of the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case." As we have held that the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and that the circumstances of last seen together along with the absence of satisfactory explanation are not sufficient for convicting the accused. Therefore the findings recorded in the above judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case.
1[ds]15. It is no more res integra that suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and the legal proof. At times it can be a case of "may be true." But there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjunctures from sure conclusions.It is settled law that inferences drawn by the court have to be on the basis of established facts and not onif the time is stretched to the maximum of 48 hours, the death was after 12:00 noon on 28.12.1992. The deceased was in the company of the accused till 9:00 pm on 27.12.1992. The inference drawn by the High Court that the accused have killed the deceased on 28.12.1992 in the night time and thrown the body on the railway track is not on the basis of any proved facts. The Trial Court is right in holding that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was with the accused after 12:00 noon onare in agreement with the Trial Court that the recovery of the khukri was not supported by any independent witnesses. The prosecution has also failed to prove that there were blood stains on the said khukri. The blood stains found in the bathroom of bungalow No. 17 were sent for examination which resulted in a negative report. The above circumstances not being proved would leave only two circumstances against the Accused which are that the Accused were last seen together with the deceased and the absence of any explanation forthcoming by the Accused.It is clear from the above that in a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis ofother judgments on this point that are cited by Mr. Venkataramani do not take a different view and, thus, need not be advertedwe have held that the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and that the circumstances of last seen together along with the absence of satisfactory explanation are not sufficient for convicting the accused. Therefore the findings recorded in the above judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case.
### Instruction:
Make a prediction on the court's ruling (acceptance (1) or rejection (0) of the petition), and then dissect the proceeding to provide a detailed explanation using key textual passages.

### Input:
of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded." 19. This Court in Bharat v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 106 , held that the failure of the accused to offer any explanation in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. alone was not sufficient to establish the charge against the accused. In the facts of the present case, the High Court committed an error in holding that in the absence of any satisfactory explanation by the accused the presumption of guilt of the Accused stood un-rebutted and thus the Appellants were liable to be convicted. 20. Mr. R. Venkataramani relied upon Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 570 at p.582 to buttress his submission that the circumstance of last seen together coupled with lack of any satisfactory explanation by the accused is a very strong circumstance on the basis of which the accused can be convicted. It was held by this Court in the above judgment as follows:- "It is true that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. But in a case like this where the various links as stated above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, and he offers no explanation, which if accepted, though not proved, would afford a reasonable basis for a conclusion on the entire case consistent with his innocence, such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a case which satisfies the standards requisite for conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence." 21. It is clear from the above that in a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction. The other judgments on this point that are cited by Mr. Venkataramani do not take a different view and, thus, need not be adverted to. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 in support of his submission that the circumstance of last seen together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possibility of any other persons meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening period. It was held in the above judgment as under:- "34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after (sic of) a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straitjacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author of the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case." As we have held that the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and that the circumstances of last seen together along with the absence of satisfactory explanation are not sufficient for convicting the accused. Therefore the findings recorded in the above judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
15. It is no more res integra that suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and the legal proof. At times it can be a case of "may be true." But there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjunctures from sure conclusions.It is settled law that inferences drawn by the court have to be on the basis of established facts and not onif the time is stretched to the maximum of 48 hours, the death was after 12:00 noon on 28.12.1992. The deceased was in the company of the accused till 9:00 pm on 27.12.1992. The inference drawn by the High Court that the accused have killed the deceased on 28.12.1992 in the night time and thrown the body on the railway track is not on the basis of any proved facts. The Trial Court is right in holding that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was with the accused after 12:00 noon onare in agreement with the Trial Court that the recovery of the khukri was not supported by any independent witnesses. The prosecution has also failed to prove that there were blood stains on the said khukri. The blood stains found in the bathroom of bungalow No. 17 were sent for examination which resulted in a negative report. The above circumstances not being proved would leave only two circumstances against the Accused which are that the Accused were last seen together with the deceased and the absence of any explanation forthcoming by the Accused.It is clear from the above that in a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis ofother judgments on this point that are cited by Mr. Venkataramani do not take a different view and, thus, need not be advertedwe have held that the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not proved and that the circumstances of last seen together along with the absence of satisfactory explanation are not sufficient for convicting the accused. Therefore the findings recorded in the above judgment are not applicable to the facts of this case.
