Naresh Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026

On 18 April 2020, Kamal Dhruv went to work in the agricultural fields. His wife, PW-2 Durga Dhruv, later contacted him by telephone. According to her testimony, Kamal told her that he was with Naresh Kumar Sahu and three other persons—Tulsiram, Narottam and Rajendra.

Later, Kamal was found lying unconscious near a byara/construction area. He was taken to the Government Hospital at Abhanpur, where he was declared dead. An initial report was registered against an unknown person. During investigation, Naresh Kumar Sahu was subsequently charge-sheeted. 

The post-mortem examination found injuries to the neck, including fracture of the thyroid cartilage and damage to neck muscles. The medical opinion was that Kamal died from asphyxia caused by throttling, making the death homicidal. 

The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and produced 21 documents. The Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Raipur, convicted Naresh Kumar Sahu under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and imposed life imprisonment under both provisions, with the sentences to run concurrently. 

The accused challenged that conviction before the High Court.

The Court agreed with the trial court that the death was homicidal. However, it found that the prosecution had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for the death. 

A central point in the judgment was the distinction between “last heard” and “last seen together.”

The deceased's wife had spoken with him by telephone and, according to her, he said that he was with the appellant and three other persons. However, no witness actually saw the deceased alive in the company of the appellant immediately before the occurrence.

The High Court held that a telephone conversation merely establishing where the deceased said he was at an earlier point could not be transformed into direct evidence that the deceased was “last seen together” with the accused. 

The Court also rejected the trial court's inference from the deceased's alleged gestures. Even according to PW-2, the deceased allegedly gestured towards four persons, rather than specifically identifying the appellant. The High Court considered the trial court's conclusion that the gesture implicated only the appellant to be conjectural and unsupported by sufficient evidence. 

The Court further noted inconsistencies between PW-2's testimony and the FIR, which had initially been registered against unknown persons, as well as material omissions concerning the alleged telephone conversation and gestures. 

Applying the principles governing circumstantial evidence, particularly those in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances excluding reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. 

The judgment draws an important evidentiary distinction between “last heard” and “last seen together.”

For the last-seen doctrine to operate, there must ordinarily be reliable evidence that the deceased was actually seen alive with the accused sufficiently close to the time of death so that the possibility of another person committing the offence is effectively excluded.

Here, the deceased's telephone conversation only indicated that he was reportedly with four people at some point during the afternoon. It did not establish that he remained with the appellant until the time of the fatal assault.

The Court relied on the established principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. Each incriminating circumstance must be firmly established, and the circumstances taken together must exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.

Because the foundational circumstance of last seen together was not proved, the remaining circumstances could not complete the chain required for a murder conviction.

The High Court found the alleged gestures ambiguous. The deceased reportedly pointed towards four persons, but the trial court inferred that he intended to implicate only the appellant.

The High Court considered that inference speculative. Criminal conviction must rest upon proved facts rather than conjecture or surmise.

The Court attached significance to the fact that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, despite PW-2 later asserting that she had disclosed the appellant's name from the outset. The Court also noted omissions regarding the telephone conversation and alleged gestures in the police statements.

The evidence indicated that there had been no previous dispute between the deceased and the appellant. Although motive is not mandatory in every criminal case, the Court observed that its absence becomes more significant when the prosecution case is based entirely on weak or inconclusive circumstantial evidence.

Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is particularly relevant to cases where prosecution relies on the last-seen doctrine, circumstantial evidence, alleged dying gestures, witness omissions and indirect evidence. The judgment demonstrates that courts must examine each link independently before treating the circumstances as a complete chain of guilt.