LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 04 March 2025

Can the last seen circumstance be acted upon where the witnesses remained silent before the police officers who reached the spot?

KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Criminal Appeal Nos. 630-631 of 2018
Coram: Sandeep Mehta; Vikram Nath; Sanjay Karol
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.293 Code of Criminal Procedure…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Their conduct in not disclosing to the police that they had seen the appellant taking away the child-victim completely demolishes the theory of last seen. Where the appellant was not known to those witnesses from before, the absence of any test identification parade and of dock identification leaves his identity unestablished.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.207, 293 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — ss.24, 25, 26 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302, 376A — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.5, 6 — Just and fair manner — Legal aid counsel — DNA profiling — Chain of custody — Last seen — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.207 — Legal aid counsel — Opportunity to defend before charge — Held: Framing charges on the day the relied upon documents are supplied denies the accused a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Where the amicus curiae is compelled to cross-examine on the day of his appointment, the trial is not conducted in a just and fair manner. (¶15, 16) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.293 — DNA profiling — Expert must be examined — Held further: A DNA profiling report is not admissible ipso facto by virtue of Section 293; the prosecution must examine the expert and prove that the techniques were reliably applied. Non-examination of that expert is fatal and the report cannot be admitted in evidence. (¶39, 40) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Forensic samples — Chain of custody — Link evidence — Held further: The sanctity and chain of custody of the samples, from their collection till they reach the FSL, must be proved by link evidence. Where they were not sealed at the inception and no witness proves their self-same condition, the reports are eschewed from consideration. (¶54, 55) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Last seen — Silence of the witnesses; no test identification parade — Held further: Where the witnesses of last seen remained silent before the police officers who reached the spot and no test identification parade was held, the last seen theory is demolished. With the DNA/FSL reports eschewed, no evidence remains to connect the appellant with the crime; conviction and death sentence set aside, appeals allowed. (¶35, 36, 56)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 35Hence, in our considered opinion, the conduct of these witnesses in remaining silent and not disclosing to the police regarding they having seen the appellant taking away the child-victim with himself, completely demolishes the prosecution case regarding the theory of last seen.
Paragraph 36We may also observe that indisputably, the appellant was not known to PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, and PW-6 from before. However, no test identification parade proceedings were conducted by the Investigating Officer(PW-14), to ascertain the identity of the appellant as being the suspect, who took away the child-victim with himself.
Acts & Sections
s.293 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.24 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.25 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.26 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.376A Indian Penal Code, 1860s.6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.5 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.366 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.45 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can a DNA profiling report be read in evidence under Section 293 without examining the expert who conducted it?Must the prosecution prove the chain of custody of forensic samples before a DNA/FSL report can be relied upon?Is a trial conducted in a just and fair manner where charges are framed on the very day the relied upon documents are supplied and no legal aid counsel has been offered?Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, may a police officer narrate verbatim in examination-in-chief a confession made by the accused during investigation?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections