Delhi High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Murder Case: “Last Seen Theory Applies When No Alternative Explanation Exists, False Alibi and Absconding Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (kidnapping for murder), 365 (kidnapping with intent to secretly confine), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 IPC (common intention). The appellant was sentenced to:

• Life imprisonment for murder.
• 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping (Section 364 IPC).
• 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment for secretly confining the deceased (Section 365 IPC).
• 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment for destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC).

The court relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, particularly:

1. The last seen theory – the deceased was last seen with the appellant and his co-accused before his murder.
2. The false plea of alibi – the appellant claimed he was in Vadodara, but his phone location proved he was in Delhi.
3. The appellant’s absconding to Vadodara immediately after the incident.
4. The recovery of the deceased’s belongings (gold ring, silver ring, wristwatch) from the appellant’s house in Vadodara.
5. The forensic evidence linking the accused’s car to the crime.
6. The ballistic report proving that the murder weapon was recovered at the instance of the co-accused.

Facts of the Case

Incident and Initial Investigation

1. On May 26, 2011, the 62-year-old deceased left his home for his plot of land in Kishangarh, Delhi, along with his wife.
2. Around 10:00 AM, the deceased’s wife saw a Hyundai Accent car approaching their plot.
3. The appellant called the deceased to his car, where they spoke for about 10 minutes.
4. The appellant held the deceased’s hand and made him sit inside the car, which was driven by the co-accused.
5. The deceased’s wife tried to approach the car to ask where her husband was going, but the car sped away before she could reach.
6. The deceased never returned home.

Missing Person Report

7. By evening, the deceased’s wife became worried. When their son returned home at 8:00 PM, she informed him that his father had left with the appellant in the morning.
8. The deceased’s son searched for his father but found no trace.
9. At 10:30 PM, the deceased’s son filed a missing person report at Vasant Kunj (North) Police Station.

Registration of FIR

10. The next morning (May 27, 2011), the deceased’s son visited the police station again and informed them that the appellant had previously threatened his father over a property dispute.
11. He also disclosed that he had called the appellant at 10:15 PM the previous night and was threatened that if the plot was not transferred, his father would be killed.
12. Based on this, FIR No. 127/2011 was registered against the appellant under Sections 365 and 34 IPC.

Discovery of the Body

13. Meanwhile, at 11:30 AM on May 26, 2011, a security guard in Gurgaon found an unidentified bullet-ridden body in a jungle area within Sushant Lok Police jurisdiction.
14. The Gurgaon Police registered an FIR, but the body was unidentified and cremated as unclaimed.
15. On June 1, 2011, the deceased’s son identified the body based on police photographs.

Appellant’s Absconding and Arrest

16. The appellant immediately fled to Vadodara, Gujarat on the evening of May 26, 2011.
17. On June 4, 2011, the appellant surrendered in Rohtak Court in an unrelated extortion case.
18. The Delhi Police arrested him on June 20, 2011 and interrogated him.
19. His co-accused was arrested on June 19, 2011, and a murder weapon was recovered from his house.
20. On June 24, 2011, police recovered the deceased’s gold ring, silver ring, and wristwatch from the appellant’s house in Vadodara.

Issues for Determination

1. Was the appellant the last person seen with the deceased before his murder?
2. Was the recovery of the deceased’s jewellery and watch from the appellant’s house valid evidence?
3. Did the call detail records (CDRs) prove a conspiracy between the accused?
4. Did the appellant’s flight to Vadodara indicate guilt?
5. Was the false plea of alibi incriminating?

Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments

• The last seen theory was unreliable because there was a time gap between when the deceased was last seen and when the body was found.
• The missing person report mentioned a yellow car, but the recovered vehicle was silver.
• The CDRs (phone records) lacked a Section 65B certificate, making them inadmissible.
• The deceased’s jewellery was planted, as no independent witnesses verified its recovery.
• The appellant was in Vadodara at the time of the murder.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The last seen theory was fully applicable since the deceased was last seen with the appellant at 10:00 AM and found dead by 11:30 AM.
• The appellant absconded immediately, proving a guilty mind.
• The call records confirmed multiple calls between the appellant and his co-accused on May 26, 2011.
• The forensic report proved that the bullet holes in the car matched the murder weapon.
• The appellant’s false alibi further incriminated him.

Legal Analysis

1. Last Seen Theory (State of U.P. v. Satish, 2005)
   • If a deceased is last seen alive with an accused and found dead soon after, the accused must explain what happened.
   • The time gap of 90 minutes in this case made the theory applicable.
2. Flight as Evidence of Guilt (Paramasivam v. State, 2015)
   • The appellant’s sudden travel to Vadodara after the crime showed a guilty mind.
3. False Alibi (Mir Mohammad Omar v. State, 2000)
   • The appellant falsely claimed he was in Vadodara, but phone records showed he was in Delhi till 7:00 PM.
4. Circumstantial Evidence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984)
   • The prosecution proved an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the appellant’s guilt.

Court’s Reasoning

• The appellant was last seen with the deceased.
• The deceased’s jewellery was found in the appellant’s house.
• The CDRs showed contact between the accused before and after the crime.
• The appellant absconded to Vadodara.
• The murder weapon was recovered from the co-accused’s house.

Conclusion

• The prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The last seen theory applied since the appellant was the last person with the deceased.
• The appellant’s sudden absconding and false alibi were incriminating.
• The deceased’s belongings were found in the appellant’s house, linking him to the crime.
• The conviction and sentence were upheld.

Implications

• Strengthens last seen theory in cases where the time gap is small.
• Circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction if it forms a complete chain.
• Flight from justice is a strong indicator of guilt.

This case sets a precedent for murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, reinforcing legal principles on the last seen theory, absconding, and false alibis.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case: “Contradictions in Witness Statements and Six-Year Incarceration Violate Article 21”; Questions Validity of MCOCA Invocation