Mr. Sarkar, the postmortem report says death occurred within 24 hours. The deceased was last seen at 5 PM. The body was found at 10 AM next day. That is only 17 hours. Why is that not proximate?

My Lord, the issue is not the exact number of hours, but whether the gap is so large that intervening circumstances could have occurred. The deceased could have been alive at 10 PM, 12 AM, or even 5 AM. The prosecution has not ruled out the possibility that someone else met the deceased after the accused parted ways. The postmortem report gives an elastic timeframe. In Sanjay Thakran, this Court held that when the time gap is large, the last seen together theory loses its incriminating value. Here, the gap is too large to draw an adverse inference. The accused cannot be convicted based on such a weak link.

The extra-judicial confession was made by A1 to PW8. Why is that not reliable?

My Lord, first, the confession is inconsistent. PW8 says A1 confessed to killing the deceased. But PW3, PW12, and PW14 say A1 made an exculpatory statement blaming A2 and A3. Second, the confession was made when the accused were detained by a mob. The mob had gathered on suspicion of murder. The accused had injuries on their bodies. This is precisely the kind of duress that makes a confession unreliable under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. A person who is being threatened by a mob may say anything to save himself. The extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon.

The stone and glass piece were recovered from the paddy field. The accused led the police to the spot. Is that not sufficient under Section 27?

My Lord, Section 27 requires discovery of a fact that was previously unknown to the police. Here, the paddy field was the place of occurrence. The police were already there recovering the body. The stone and glass piece were lying in an open field with free access. Anyone could have seen them. The accused did not 'discover' anything; they merely pointed out objects that were already visible. Moreover, there is no statement from the accused indicating that they had concealed the objects. The seizure list merely says 'on being shown and certified'. That is not sufficient for Section 27. This Court has consistently held that pointing out objects in a public place does not amount to a discovery under Section 27.

The High Court and Trial Court have concurrently convicted you. Why should this Court interfere?

My Lord, concurrent findings of fact are not binding on this Court when they are based on a misapplication of legal principles. The Trial Court and the High Court failed to apply the correct legal standards for last seen together theory (proximity requirement), for extra-judicial confession (duress), and for Section 27 recoveries (concealment). This Court has repeatedly held that when the courts below have ignored material evidence or misapplied the law, this Court will interfere. Here, the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. The appellants should not be made to suffer because of errors of law by the courts below.

For PetitionerCriminal Premium

Time Gap Too Large, Confession Under Duress, Recovery Invalid — (2026) INSC 528

The time gap between the last sighting of the deceased with the accused (5 PM) and the death (anytime between 5 PM and 10 AM next day) is not proximate.

Papan Sarkar @ Pranab v. State of West Bengal — (2026) INSC 528

Core Argument

The time gap between the last sighting of the deceased with the accused (5 PM) and the death (anytime between 5 PM and 10 AM next day) is not proximate. The extra-judicial confession was made under duress when the accused were detained by a mob. The recoveries do not satisfy Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as there was no evidence of concealment.

Key Precedents

State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 — Held that for the last seen together theory to be incriminating, the time gap between the last sighting and death must be proximate; a large gap snaps the link.
Section 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Provides that a confession made under inducement, threat or promise is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in