The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of two men accused of murdering a young man in West Bengal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances necessary for conviction in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof and found serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen together” theory, extra-judicial confession, and alleged recoveries of incriminating material. 

The case arose from the disappearance of the son of the complainant on the evening of October 30, 2012. According to the prosecution, the deceased had left with three accused persons on motorcycles and was later found dead in a field the next morning, with his body discovered in a ditch in a brutal condition. The Trial Court convicted all three accused and sentenced them for murder, a decision later upheld by the High Court. Two of the convicted accused approached the Supreme Court in appeal. 

The prosecution had relied heavily on the “last seen together” circumstance, arguing that the deceased was seen with the accused shortly before his death. However, the Supreme Court examined the evidence closely and found substantial weaknesses in this theory. The Court observed that for the “last seen” principle to operate as an incriminating circumstance, there must be a close proximity between the point when the deceased was last seen with the accused and the time of death. 

The post-mortem report created serious uncertainty in this regard. The medical evidence only indicated that twenty-four hours had not passed since death at the time of examination, which left a broad timeframe during which the death could have occurred. The Court noted that death could have happened at any point during the intervening night or even in the morning before the body was recovered. Such a wide time gap, according to the Court, destroyed the proximity required to make the “last seen” circumstance a reliable basis for conviction. 

The Court also rejected testimony alleging that the accused and deceased had been seen drinking together in a field. It found that the witness’s version did not inspire confidence because she could not even identify basic details regarding her alleged workplace and her explanation for being present at the location appeared doubtful. Consequently, the Court held that her testimony could not be used as a reliable incriminating circumstance. 

Another major pillar of the prosecution case was the alleged extra-judicial confession. Witnesses claimed that one of the accused admitted involvement in the murder while detained by villagers. The Supreme Court found material inconsistencies among witnesses regarding the exact contents of the statement. While one witness claimed there was a confession involving all three accused, others suggested the accused had shifted blame to his co-accused and absolved himself. 

The Court observed that a statement attempting to exonerate oneself while implicating others could not be considered reliable evidence. It further noted that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and, in the present case, the alleged confession had been made while the accused were under pressure from an angry crowd, raising serious concerns regarding voluntariness. Medical records showing injuries on the accused after arrest further weakened the prosecution’s claim. 

The Supreme Court also found serious flaws in the alleged recovery of weapons and other objects. The prosecution claimed that a stone and glass pieces used in the murder were recovered based on information supplied by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the Court observed that there was no clear evidence regarding concealment or any specific statement from the accused leading to discovery. It emphasized that knowledge of concealment is an essential ingredient for invoking Section 27. 

Similarly, the alleged recovery of the deceased’s motorcycle was found unreliable because witnesses could not identify the accused and important evidence such as registration details was not properly produced before the Court. 

The Court further noted the complete absence of evidence regarding motive. While motive is not always necessary in circumstantial evidence cases, the Court stated that where the prosecution chain itself is weak, absence of motive assumes significance, particularly in a case involving an exceptionally brutal killing. 

After evaluating all circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that none of the alleged incriminating circumstances successfully linked the accused to the murder. It therefore reversed the conviction and ordered the immediate release of the two appellants if they were not required in any other case. 

Significantly, the Court also took note of the fact that the third accused had not filed an appeal and had continued to remain in prison. Recognising the possibility of similar injustice, the Court directed legal services authorities to assist him in filing an appeal before the Supreme Court within two months.

Case Details

Case Title: Papan Sarkar @ Pranab Versus State of West Bengal

Citation: JURISHOUR-1346-SC-2026

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2507 of 2026

Date: 22/05/2026

Read More: Inquest Report Can’t Be Basis to Ignore Strong Evidence Against Accused: Supreme Court Quashes Bail