CASE NAME: Sanjay Bhagat v. State of Bihar (with Lala Miya @ Yasin v. State of Bihar)
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 639 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 600 of 2018
COURT: High Court of Judicature at Patna
DATE: February 4, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ansuls
FACTS
On the night of February 14, 2017, around 10:00 P.M., the appellants, Sanjay Bhagat and Lala Miya, entered the house of the informant, Ashok Ram. According to the prosecution, they forcibly took away his 8-year-old daughter, Renu Kumari, while she was sleeping. The parents and neighbors searched for the girl throughout the night but could not find the appellants. The following morning, the girl’s dead body was discovered in a nearby lichi field. The post-mortem report revealed she had been raped and died from asphyxia due to strangulation.
ISSUES
- Whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, specially the “last seen” theory.
- Whether the burden of proof shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to explain the circumstances of the victim’s death.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Section 376(A) (Rape causing death or persistent vegetative state) [Section 66 of BNS, 2023] and Section 302 (Murder with common intention) [Section ].
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 3(1)(w) (Penalizes the sexual harassment of a women belonging to a Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe by a non-consensual touching of a sexual nature, knowing she belongs to such community.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 106 [Now Section 109 of BSA, 2023] (Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge) and Section 165 [Now Section 168 of BSA, 2023] (Judge’s power to put questions or order production).
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
The defense argued that the prosecution’s story was improbable, questioning how the child could be taken while sleeping next to her mother without the accused being caught during a chase. They further claimed false implications due to prior business dispute regarding the field of lichi.
RESPONDENT
The prosecution relied on the testimony of eye-witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 6, and P.W. 7) who saw the appellants taking the child. They argued that the short time gap between the “last seen” event and the recovery of the body unerringly pointed to the appellants’ guilt.
ANALYSIS
The Court noted that the “last seen” theory is critical when the time gap between the accused being seen with the deceased and the discovery of the body is so small that it rules out other possibilities. In this case, the gap was approximately 10 hours. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 once the “last seen” fact is established, a “reverse burden” falls on the accused to provide an explanation for the death. The appellants failed to offer any explanation beyond a bald denial. The Court also criticized the defense for failing to cross-examine witnesses effectively to discredit their “last seen” testimony.
JUDGEMENT
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s conviction and life sentences for both appellants. It found no infirmity in the lower court’s judgement, concluding the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
The appeal was dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that in cases where the accused is the last person seen with a victim before a swift death, the failure to provide a plausible explanation serves as a vital “missing link” that completes the chain of guilt of the accused.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: LISHIKA BATRA
Read the judgement copy here:
Sanjay Bhagat v. State of Bihar
