Case Name: Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17440 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: 21 May 2025
Quorum: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Factual Background:
In this case, Padman Bibhar was blamed for killing a boy named Akash Garadia. On 4th April 2016, Akash went to take bath near a river with two others, PW-1 and PW-2. Later, Akash and Padman went to collect cashew nuts. Only Padman came back. Akash didn’t return. The next morning, his dead body was found in the river. Akash’s father (PW-3) believed that Padman killed his son and complained to the police.
Issues for Determination:
- Whether the ‘last seen together’ evidence was enough to prove Padman guilty?
- Whether the circumstantial evidence was strong and complete?
- Whether the High Court and Trial Court were right in convicting Padman?
Legal Provisions:
- Section 302 IPC – Murder
- Section 201 IPC – Causing disappearance of evidence
- Section 313 CrPC – Accused’s explanation
Appellant’s Contentions:
Padman’s lawyer said that:
- There was no direct proof.
- Chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete.
- FIR was delayed by 20 hours.
- Chemical report was not helpful.
- Dead body’s recovery place was not consistent.
- There was no proper motive.
- He was falsely accused.
Respondent’s Contentions:
The State said:
- The last seen together evidence by PW-1 and PW-2 was clear.
- Appellant had no explanation for the disappearance of Akash.
- All courts rightly believed the chain of events.
- Appellant had suspicious conduct and changed his story.
Analysis:
The Court said just being last seen with someone who later died is not enough to prove murder. There should be strong and full chain of proof. The Court noticed:
- Appellant didn’t run away or admit guilt.
- He even joined the search party for the missing boy.
- The stone found was not recovered based on his confession.
- The blood report did not match him.
- Motive was weak, and not mentioned by main witnesses earlier.
Also, the theory that he killed because he suspected his wife’s affair was not believable. If he had a problem, he would have harmed his wife, not her cousin. And the witness who said this never told it to police before.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court said only “last seen together” is not enough to convict someone for murder. There must be stronger and more complete proof. Suspicion is not the same as proof. The prosecution failed to make a full chain of evidence. So, conviction based on this is not valid.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court canceled the earlier decisions of the Trial Court and High Court. Padman Bibhar was declared not guilty of murder and disappearance of evidence. He was ordered to be set free if not needed in any other case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRIYANKA DESHIKAN.
