In a striking verdict, the Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction, underscoring that being the “last seen” with a victim cannot stand alone as a foundation for guilt. The justices emphasized that without a solid chain of corroborative evidence, suspicion—even strong suspicion—falls short of proving a crime beyond reasonable doubt.
The case hinged on a man who was convicted primarily because witnesses placed him near the deceased shortly before the latter’s body was discovered floating in a river. Despite this, the Court found the timeline murky and the link tenuous. The prosecution’s narrative leaned heavily on circumstantial clues: an eyewitness recalling their last meeting near a river and cashew fields, a blood-stained stone found nearby, and a purported motive tangled in family drama and suspected infidelity. But none of these pieces formed a conclusive picture.
The Court pointed out key gaps: the stone wasn’t definitively connected to the victim, nor was it traced back to the accused. The alleged motive felt unconvincing, as the accused had no known hostility toward the victim, who was his wife’s cousin. If jealousy had been the spark, logic suggested any harm would have been directed elsewhere.
“Circumstantial evidence demands a chain so complete that it leaves no room for doubt,” the bench stated, citing earlier rulings that caution against relying on “last seen together” as anything more than a weak thread in the fabric of proof.
In this case, the evidence raised doubt but did not seal the verdict. The Court’s ruling sends a clear message: suspicion doesn’t equate to conviction, and justice requires more than just being the last person seen with a victim.
With this, the man was acquitted, leaving the prosecution’s circumstantial house of cards to crumble.