NO MORE SHORTCUTS: SUPREME COURT DEMANDS REAL PROOF IN ALIBI AND 'LAST SEEN' MURDER CASES

Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University Kolkata

Supreme Court Demands Real Proof in Alibi and ‘Last Seen’ Murder Cases

Introduction

An exceptional Supreme Court of India ruling freed Jagdish Gond on April 7, 2025 from murder charges for a death his wife Jagdish Gond had blamed on him since the start. A duplicate case of deep rot persisted in the Chhattisgarh High Court after the supreme court established its major achievement. The case of Jagdish Gond v. The legal problems which face our nation's legal system can be observed in the case proceedings of State of Chhattisgarh. The Supreme Court accepted the principle that being the last person to see him made him guilty for judicial purposes to establish his presumed death status. The court gave exceptional focus to this matter to the point where it received exactly the opposite reception as the Gond trial which elicited collective sympathy through a quiet statement. The essential information of this case follows along with its background explanation because we must remember that excessive hunger for exhibits accused guilt in a vivid manner.

Legal Framework: Alibi and the "Last Seen" Theory

The "Last Seen" Theory in Indian Criminal Law

A defendant sharing physical presence with the victim right before their death creates one of the main elements in the evidence surrounding their case according to this circumstantial theory. This theory normally includes evidence types including corroboration, forensic data, motives along with eyewitness statements or other substantial evidential facts. According to court requirements this evidence needs additional supporting data along with evidence gaps closure for reaching a reasonable doubt threshold. The Supreme Court discussed the case of State of UP vs. Satish (2005) to explain that when an accused was seen with the victim just before their death the timeframe needs to demonstrate that no third-party could have been involved Kanhaia Lal v. The court of State of Rajasthan (2014) determined that too much reliance on the theory does not provide grounds for conviction without supporting evidence.

Plea of Alibi and the Burden of Proof

The defensive method known as alibi enables defendants to demonstrate their presence elsewhere besides the crime scene. The accused must get suitable evidence according to Section 11 from the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 for court examination. During prosecution the authority must demonstrate that witness validation of alibi is inaccurate since they must establish their position beyond any reasonable doubt when using alibi evidence. The supreme court has maintained this legal position regarding alibis since a long period of time. The trial displays an imbalance under some circumstances which includes Krishna Mahadev Chavan v. The court pronounced the decision in State of Maharashtra (2021) that proves the “last seen” proves that the prosecution must proceed further by disproving the accused's alibi defense when there is no strong evidence against him.

Case Background: Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Factual Matrix

A woman's corpse was discovered inside the home of the couple in 2020. Jagdish Gond gave a statement under section 174 of the CrPC that his wife's death was both unexpected and not caused by natural means. The autopsy investigation revealed no signs of injury on the body after Gond made his police contact. When the dead man passed away his family members first believed it was a natural death and excluded foul play as a cause. A few days after the death his father made a murder case that led to an IPC 302 criminal case against Gond along with his parents. He declared at the time that he operated shifts at a cement factory. Gond acknowledged that police personnel had his phone number because he had notified them directly through their last communication. A court in 2022 set him free since the prosecution did not demonstrate homicide and they could not validate his defense. Chhattisgarh High Court made its decision in 2023 based solely on the principle of last seen evidence showing Gond spent his last moments with her at their mutual home and because he failed to offer a valid explanation of her death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Key Findings

1. Prosecution’s Failure to Disprove the Alibi

The prosecution team disqualified his alibi as they failed to prove his involvement. According to the Supreme Court the High Court invalidated proper legal grounds by forcing the prosecution to investigate Gond's alibi when he established "put in" an acceptable defense. According to Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in his bench opinion, Gond revealed to police during his initial police statement that he was absent from the location of the crimes but the prosecution did not properly investigate this fact.

The Court Level emphasized: “You cannot deny that some measure of investigation took place (unfortunate in that verifying that the employee was on the premises at the time of crime flies in the face of the facts). The written hand that would repeat what was claimed was of one single employee who had to rely on second hand information and worked, also, in the same for purpose zone that had little access directly to the Poilen.

The defence maintained an unopposed omission regarding verifying factory attendance by Gond and collecting statements from factory co-workers. The defense becomes plausible because workplace records of factory attendance at Gond remained undealt with in an irresponsible manner. Gond acted as the main factor to prove the prosecution lacked evidence diligence. Without conducting any inquiries the prosecution gains direct access to ignite its case whenever evidence shows mistakes. Adhering to the evidence presented at Gond allowed the prosecution to demonstrate with strong facts that Gond’s statements were untrue. Accusations Trial Accusation Probabilities Evidence Certainty.

2. Misapplication of the "Last Seen" Theory

The court decided that although a husband's failure to explain in detail his wife's death in the conjugal home creates suspicion this does not serve as sufficient conviction evidence to imprison someone when they present a plausible alternative explanation for whereabouts. In Yadavv. State of Uttar Pradesh the Court provided additional details regarding this matter. According to the judgment of Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh the “last seen” theory together with its time boundary collapses entirely whenever there exists a prolonged period between the instances of where the accused last saw the victim and their death. The prosecution in Gond’s case failed to establish beyond doubt that all necessary links in the “complete and unbroken chain of circumstances” were broken.

3. Section 106 of the Evidence Act and Presumption of Innocence

Section 106 of the law establishes an obligation for the accused to substantiate the disputed facts which fall under their specialized domain. The Supreme Court issued a warning that such application would not undermine the system objective. Justice Dhulia noted: Using Section 106 from the Evidence Act to release the state from its core obligation of establishing guilt to beyond reasonable doubt would be improper fashion. The holding silence by an accused person does not suffice to bridge an existing evidential gap. According to the Judicial decision additional evidence demonstrated that the prosecution's homicide theory was incorrect because Gond reported his wife’s death shortly after her demise while medical experts confirmed no signs of injuries before death. The medical examination confirmed that the ligature mark appeared "superficial" so it destroyed any suggestion of strangulation or homicide determination.

Implications for Criminal Jurisprudence

1. Reaffirming the Presumption of Innocence

By making this ruling the court signifies its commitment to maintaining the legal principle that people maintain innocence unless the court acknowledges their conviction as proven. Through its acquittal of Gond the Court displayed the constitutional belief that procedures circumvented for basic proof cannot lead to conviction under Article 21. 

2. Guidelines for Lower Courts

The judgments challenge lower courts to:

• The court evaluated the methods used by the prosecution to investigate and validate alibi evidence during the case. 

• The conviction should not rely solely on the "last seen" theory since additional corroborating evidence would be essential to support the findings. 

• When prosecutors improperly depend on Section 106 in court proceedings, they diminish the evidence weight required to demonstrate guilt. Circumstances of the case, would only serve to weaken the prosecution's burden of proof

3. Impact on Investigative Practices

Law enforcement agencies are forced to conduct thorough checks of all presented alibis. When law agencies fail to investigate alibis properly this results in unjustified releases that lower public trust in the justice system. By emphasizing medical examinations and forensics the court demonstrated that investigators should adopt better procedures.

Critical Analysis and Unresolved Questions

1. Judicial Reliance on Alibi Evidence

Any decision regarding the burden of proof might represent an excess of correction by the prosecution. When an alibi turns out to be fabricated what happens in such circumstances? Courts must comprehend that fundamental rights together with social norms need to activate in gender brutality cases since victim statements lack independent verification.

2. Section 106 and Gender Dynamics

Section 106 remains essential for activists because it applies to private crime scenes within homes according to their view. The Supreme Court warning regarding misuse of section 106 should not stand in the way of judicial applications in cases where husbands possess exclusive knowledge of evidence.

3. Forensic Deficiencies

Forensic facilities in India suffer from acute funding deficiencies according to the case evidence. This Gond case demonstrates how systemic structures delay justice and create opportunities for unreasonable decisions to make their way into the system since the post-mortem resolution remains pending.

Conclusion: A Victory for Due Process

Through the Jagdish Gond judgment legal proceedings obtained the leading position to maintain procedural rights during evidence-based criminal investigations. Future court decisions will be excluded from conviction due to the expanded judicial freedom created by the Gond acquittal which prevents artificial flimsy grounds from allowing faulty execution of justice. The judgment shows how important it is for prosecutors to conduct comprehensive investigations as teleological reasoning should not be used unless every aspect of their case is complete. The judiciary ensures personal freedom through constitutional morality after taking a leading role despite working years in the restricted criminal justice system of India.

Ayaan Siddiqui, St. Xavier’s University Kolkata