Last Seen with the Deceased, Found with Stolen Chain and Mobile – Guilt Proven Beyond Doubt: Bombay High Court Rejects Appeal of Embroidery Workshop Killers

“Chain of Circumstantial Evidence So Complete That No Other Conclusion Is Possible”:- Delivering a detailed and damning affirmation of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence, the Bombay High Court upheld the life sentences awarded to Anilkumar Chhotelal Yadav and Nagendrakumar @ Monu Kanojiya for the cold-blooded murder and robbery of their employer, an embroidery businessman in Ghatkopar, Mumbai. Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale ruled that the “circumstantial evidence forms an unbroken and exclusive chain,” and left “no room for doubt that the accused and no other were the perpetrators of the crime.”

The Appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on March 30, 2015, under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and seven years for robbery, with both sentences to run concurrently. Their conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence including “last seen” testimony, forensic recovery, and usage of the victim’s mobile phone after his death.

The High Court, after reserving judgment on April 23, 2025, delivered its decision six days later, confirming the trial court's conclusions in toto.

Prosecution Narrative and Circumstantial Web: The deceased, Shankar Thakkar, was last seen alive in his workshop on November 5, 2011. His brother and wife were unable to reach him by phone later that evening, and two days later, he was found dead inside the locked workshop, with visible signs of strangulation and head injuries. Blood-stained bricks, wires, and ropes were recovered from the crime scene.

The High Court detailed the forensic and testimonial linkages, noting that the deceased was seen alive at 4:00 p.m. and that the Appellants were last seen with him shortly thereafter. “When a man is found dead in a closed space, and was last seen in the company of the accused shortly before his disappearance, a heavy burden lies on the accused to explain their presence and subsequent actions,” the Court observed.

Citing the testimony of the wife (PW2), who spoke to the deceased at 4:00 p.m., and the tea-server (PW8), who saw the deceased and both accused in the workshop at the same time, the Court held:
“The deceased and the Appellants were together in the workshop between 4:00 pm and 5:00 pm. After that, the Appellants shut the shop and the deceased went missing. This is a critical, unbroken link.”

Recovery and Forensic Evidence: The gold chain belonging to the deceased was traced to a jeweller, who positively identified both Appellants as having brought it for repair at 5:30 p.m. on the same day. He also identified the chain in court. The Court remarked:
“The attempt to dispose of the stolen chain immediately after the murder fortifies the prosecution’s theory of motive and subsequent conduct.”

The victim's mobile phone was recovered from Appellant No.2, and call data records (CDR) proved usage after the date and time of death. Blood-stained clothes and keys to the workshop were also recovered from the accused pursuant to disclosure statements.

No Alibi, No Explanation – Defence Crumbles:The defence offered no evidence or alternative version. The Court noted that even the presence of the Appellants in the workshop was not seriously contested. “There is a deafening silence from the accused in the face of specific evidence. Their failure to explain the incriminating circumstances within their special knowledge weighs heavily against them,” the Bench held.

On the question of credibility of recoveries, the Court rejected the argument that the accused was in judicial custody during recoveries, pointing to official remand records confirming police custody at the relevant time.

Golden Principles of Circumstantial Evidence: Relying on the landmark judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench reiterated that: “Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. The chain must be so complete that there is no escape from the inference of guilt.”

The Court further referred to Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., observing: “Even in last seen cases, corroboration is essential. Here, corroboration is overwhelming.”

In a resounding endorsement of the Sessions Court judgment, the High Court concluded: “We have no hesitation in holding that the circumstantial evidence is complete and conclusive. There is no hypothesis consistent with innocence. The Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence stand confirmed.”

The judgment reaffirms that well-proved circumstantial evidence, when forming a continuous and cogent chain, is as powerful as direct evidence. The High Court’s reasoning underscores the judicial commitment to ensuring that carefully built prosecutions are not thwarted by theoretical doubt, especially when forensic and testimonial proofs are mutually reinforcing.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2025