MUKESH MAHADEV MUSAHAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Weak 'Last Seen' Evidence, Absence of Motive, and Inadmissibility of Recoveries Made While Accused Were Handcuffed.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9767-DB
Decision Date: 25-02-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Constitution of India (Article 20); Circumstantial Evidence; Last Seen Theory; Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
- Facts: On March 25, 2016, the half-naked body of an unidentified woman aged 55-60 was found in a ditch near the Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, with severe facial injuries. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, primarily the "last seen" theory provided by PW-3, who claimed to have seen the appellants leading the deceased behind a bathroom at midnight. Additional evidence included the recovery of a blood-stained brick, stone, and clothes at the instance of the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court convicted the appellants for murder and causing disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Procedural Posture: The appellants challenged the judgment and order of conviction dated January 12, 2018, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay, by filing two separate criminal appeals before the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen" theory and recoveries under Section 27, to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
- Holding: No, the conviction cannot be sustained. The High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the "last seen" theory was weak because the time gap between the sighting (12:00 a.m.) and the discovery of the body (9:00 a.m.) was too wide, allowing for the possibility of intervening factors in a public area. Regarding the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court found them unreliable because the articles were recovered from places of public access after several days. Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellants were handcuffed during the recovery process, which vitiates the "voluntary" nature of the disclosure and renders the evidence doubtful. The Court also emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove any motive and that the failure to seal the recovered incriminating articles on the spot created a fatal gap in the chain of custody.
🔒 For Members Only