Supreme Court: Circumstantial Evidence Needs Strong Corroboration for Conviction

The Supreme Court ruled that while circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction, it must be consistent solely with guilt. A man's life sentence was overturned due to a weak chain of evidence, emphasizing that 'last seen together' is insufficient alone to convict without solid corroboration.

The Supreme Court emphasized on Thursday that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for a conviction only if it points solely to the accused's guilt. This ruling led to the acquittal of a man previously sentenced to life in a 2004 murder case, overturning the conviction due to insufficient evidence.

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra highlighted that the 'last seen together' theory alone cannot sustain a conviction, as established in criminal jurisprudence. The circumstances must exclude any hypothesis of innocence for the accused to be convicted solely on circumstantial grounds.

The court overturned the life sentence of appellant Manoj alias Munna, citing gaps in the prosecution's evidence. The Supreme Court ruled based on the principle that any doubt should benefit the accused, not the prosecution, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence without strong corroboration.

(With inputs from agencies.)