The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 INSC 317), reaffirmed the principle that conviction in criminal cases cannot be solely based on the last-seen theory. The judgment sets a critical precedent, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must be complete, cogent, and beyond reasonable doubt. The case also underscores the principle that moral conviction cannot substitute legal conviction, reaffirming the fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence—proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Background
The appeal arose from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had confirmed the conviction and death sentence awarded to the appellant, Sanjay, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.16, Bulandshahar. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last-seen theory and extra-judicial confession. The accused was convicted under Sections 302 and 376(2)(G) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the rape and murder of a four-year-old child. However, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, finding multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
The Last-Seen Theory: An Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence
The last-seen theory postulates that when an accused is last seen with the deceased and the latter is subsequently found dead, it raises a strong presumption against the accused. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this theory alone is insufficient to convict unless the chain of evidence is complete and points unerringly to the accused’s guilt.
In Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the prosecution relied heavily on witness testimonies stating that the accused was last seen with the victim. However, the Court found that:
- The accused had actively participated in the search for the victim for several days after her disappearance, which was inconsistent with the behaviour of a guilty person.
- The prosecution failed to explain why no missing person report was filed immediately, despite multiple witnesses claiming to have seen the victim with the accused.
- There was no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime.
The Court relied on precedents such as Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014) and Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005), reaffirming that conviction cannot rest solely on the last-seen theory.
Extra-Judicial Confession: A Weak Form of Evidence
The case also involved an alleged extra-judicial confession by the accused, which led to the discovery of the victim’s body. However, the Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative:
- The confession’s location varied across witness testimonies, with one witness claiming it occurred at a marriage hall and another stating it took place near a tube well.
- Independent witnesses were not examined, despite their presence during the recovery of the body.
- The forensic evidence did not link the accused to the crime conclusively.
The Court cited Kalinga v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023), reiterating that extra-judicial confessions must be treated cautiously and require strong corroboration.
Forensic Evidence: Lack of Conclusive Link
The forensic report in the case did not establish a direct link between the accused and the crime. The Supreme Court observed:
- The forensic examination did not compare the blood found on the deceased’s clothes with that of the accused.
- The presence of semen on the deceased’s clothes did not establish that it belonged to the accused.
- The mere recovery of a button from the crime scene was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Given these lapses, the Court held that the forensic evidence failed to substantiate the prosecution’s case, aligning with the principle set in Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana (2024).
The Principle of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This doctrine ensures that no innocent person is wrongfully convicted. The Court reaffirmed that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.
In Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court highlighted:
- The inconsistencies in witness testimonies created reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt.
- The lack of independent corroboration weakened the prosecution’s case.
- The prosecution’s failure to establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence meant that an alternative hypothesis of innocence could not be ruled out.
The ruling aligns with Pritinder Singh alias Lovely v. State of Punjab (2023) and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), which emphasized that circumstantial evidence must exclude every hypothesis except guilt.
The Dangers of Moral Conviction in Law
One of the most critical aspects of the judgment was its rejection of moral conviction as a basis for criminal liability. The Court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but cautioned against allowing emotions to override legal principles.
In Randeep Singh v. State of Haryana (2024), the Supreme Court reiterated that:
- Judges must rely solely on legal evidence, not moral considerations.
- A conviction based on moral outrage rather than concrete evidence leads to a miscarriage of justice.
- The rule of law demands that even the most heinous offences be adjudicated fairly and impartially.
By setting aside the conviction, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that justice must be served through due process and not through public sentiment or moral outrage.
Conclusion
The judgment in Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh reinforces crucial principles of criminal law, emphasizing that:
(i) The last-seen theory alone is insufficient for conviction.
(ii) Extra-judicial confessions require strong corroboration.
(iii) Forensic evidence must conclusively link the accused to the crime.
(iv) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is paramount.
(v) Moral conviction has no place in legal proceedings.
This ruling serves as a reminder that the justice system must safeguard against wrongful convictions by adhering to strict evidentiary standards. While society rightfully demands accountability for heinous crimes, the courts must ensure that convictions are based on unimpeachable evidence, not conjecture or public sentiment.