23 May 2025 Legal Updates

'LAST SEEN' ALONE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION WITHOUT CORROBORATION, SUPREME COURT ACQUITS MAN IN MURDER CASE

(a) Case Title:

• Padman Bibhar vs. State of Odisha

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 21, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Facts of the Case

On April 4, 2016, the appellant (Padman Bibhar) went with the deceased (Akash Garadia) and two other witnesses to a river for bathing. The appellant and deceased then went to collect cashew nuts from a nearby field. The deceased never returned; his dead body was found floating in the river the next morning. The appellant was charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code

Both the Trial Court and High Court convicted the appellant to life imprisonment

Key Legal Issues

• Whether conviction can be based solely on "last seen together" circumstantial evidence?
• Requirements for conviction in circumstantial evidence cases?
• Standard of proof required in criminal cases?

Supreme Court's Analysis

Circumstantial Evidence Requirements

The Court reiterated the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda test for circumstantial evidence cases:

• Chain of evidence must be complete
• Circumstances should be conclusive in nature
• Facts should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused
• Circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt

"Last Seen Together" Doctrine

The Court emphasized that:

• "Last seen together" is a weak piece of evidence
• Conviction cannot be based solely on this circumstance
• There must be additional corroborative evidence establishing connectivity between accused and crime
• Time gap between last being seen together and death must be so small that no other person could have committed the crime

Court's Findings

The Court observed that the only evidence available against the accused was “last seen together” and no other incriminating material. The alleged motive (suspicion about wife’s character) was unreliable and illogical. The Court also observed that the alleged weapon (stone) was not recovered based on the appellant’s statement. The appellant co-operated with the investigation proceedings and did not flee.

Decision

Supreme Court acquitted the appellant ad set aside conviction and sentence imposed by lower courts. It held that evidence raised suspicion but was not conclusive enough for conviction.

Key Legal Principles

1. Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases

• "Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof"- Large difference between "may be proved" and "will be proved". Court must maintain distance between "mere conjectures and sure conclusions."

2. Circumstantial Evidence Standard-

• Each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. All circumstances together should form a complete chain and should unerringly point to guilt of accused and none else.

3. Last Seen Together Theory-

Not sufficient by itself for conviction. Requires additional corroborative evidence. Time gap is a crucial factor.

'IN MATTERS OF PERSONAL LIBERTY, HIGH COURTS CAN'T KEEP MATTER PENDING FOR LONG': SUPREME COURT GRANTS BAIL AFTER 27 ADJOURNMENTS BY HC

(a) Case Title:

• Lakshya Tawar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 22, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

Background

This was a Special Leave Petition seeking bail by the petitioner Lakshya Tawar, who had been in custody for over four years in connection with a CBI case. The Petitioner had been incarcerated for more than 4 years and the High Court of Allahabad had adjourned the bail application 27 times over an extended period. The Petitioner’s application was languishing in the High Court without proper consideration.  

Court's Observations

1. Criticism of High Court:

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court's conduct, noting that in matters of personal liberty, High Courts should not keep matters pending indefinitely with repeated adjournments

2. Exceptional Circumstances:

The Court noted that normally such petitions would not be entertained, but the extraordinary number of adjournments (27 occasions) compelled them to intervene

CBI's Opposition: The Additional Solicitor General opposed the bail on grounds that the petitioner was involved in various similar matters

Decision

Granted Bail - The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner considering 4 years of incarceration. The Complainant’s evidence had been recorded, and there was an unreasonable delay on the part of the High Court in deciding the matter.

KEY TAKEAWAY

1. Right to Speedy Trial

• Personal liberty is a fundamental right that cannot be compromised by judicial delays. Courts have a duty to ensure timely disposal of bail applications

2. Judicial Accountability

• Higher courts can intervene when lower courts fail in their duties. Repeated adjournments without valid reasons are unacceptable in criminal matters

3. Bail Jurisprudence

• Length of incarceration is a significant factor in bail considerations
• Recording of complainant's evidence strengthens the case for bail
• Personal liberty cannot be sacrificed due to administrative inefficiency

4. Supreme Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction

• The Supreme Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 to prevent miscarriage of justice

DENYING EDUCATION TO GIRLS CITING HEALTH CONCERNS LIKE ANAEMIA ARISING DUE TO MENSTRUATION IS UNACCEPTABLE: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Sakshi Choudhary v. Union of India & Anr.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 15, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand (Single Judge)

Facts of the Case

A 19 year old girl Sakshi qualified the screening process for admission to B.Sc. (Nursing) Course-2024 under Armed Forces Medical Services. During medical examination by Special Medical Board (SMB), her hemoglobin was found below prescribed levels. She was declared "unfit" for admission. An appeal to Appellate Medical Board (AMB) within 24 hours also resulted in "unfit" declaration. The low hemoglobin was caused by heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia)

Legal Issue

Whether a girl's education can be hindered due to health conditions arising from menstrual issues, and whether denial of admission based solely on low hemoglobin caused by blood loss during menstruation is justifiable?

Court's Interim Orders

• October 7, 2024: Court directed provisional review medical check-up
• October 15, 2024: Court directed to keep one B.Sc. (Nursing) seat vacant
• Review Medical Board found petitioner "fit for Anemia"

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

Medical Understanding:

• Anemia is not permanent: It's a temporary condition affecting red blood cells and hemoglobin
• Menorrhagia (heavy menstrual bleeding): Affects 10-15% of women annually in India, causing iron deficiency
• Hormonal imbalance: Heavy bleeding caused by imbalances in progesterone and estrogen levels
• Temporary nature: The condition was situational, not chronic

Legal Principles Applied:

• Right to Education: Girls should not be denied educational opportunities due to menstrual health issues
• Gender Equality: Menstrual cycles should not be barriers to education
• Compassionate Approach: Authorities should adopt lenient views for temporary health conditions
• Review Medical Board Opinion: Latest medical opinion should prevail over earlier assessments

Court's Decision

• Judgment: Writ petition Allowed

Directions to Respondents:

Admit petitioner to B.Sc. (Nursing) Course in any Armed Forces Medical Services nursing college. Use the vacant seat reserved as per October 15, 2024 order. Comply within 4 weeks of receiving certified copy. Admission subject to her being otherwise suitable

Key Legal Principles

Constitutional Law:

• Article 14 (Equality): No discrimination based on gender-specific health conditions
• Article 19 (Freedom): Right to pursue education and profession
• Article 21 (Life and Liberty): Includes right to education and healthcare