Unexplained Possession Of Stolen Ornaments Soon After Murder Attracts Presumption Of Guilt Under Section 114 Evidence Act: Madras High Court

"Where a person is found in possession of the fruits of crime and unless he explains as to how he came into possession thereof, two inferences can be drawn by the court; first – that somebody sold or gave the same to him or second - he removed them while committing the crime," Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, affirmed the life sentence of a man convicted of murder for gain, holding that the unexplained possession of a deceased person's jewelry immediately after the occurrence attracts a strong legal presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.

A bench comprising Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed that where theft and murder form part of the same transaction, the presumption that the possessor is the thief naturally extends to the charge of murder.

The appellant, Chandrasekar, was the brother of the deceased woman's husband and was frequently engaged by her for household errands. On January 23, 2019, while the deceased was alone in her house in Dindigul, the appellant allegedly trespassed into the premises, brutally stabbed her to death, and fled with 23.5 sovereigns of gold jewelry, cash, and her mobile phone. The trial court convicted him under Sections 449, 380, and 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, which he challenged in the present appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether the recovery of stolen articles from the appellant’s possession, coupled with scientific evidence, was sufficient to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. The court was also called upon to determine whether the presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act could be legitimately extended to the offence of murder in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

Court Explains Presumption Under Section 114 Evidence Act

The Court emphasized that Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) allows the judiciary to use common sense and experience to judge the effect of particular facts. The bench noted that the presumption of guilt arises not from the mere fact of possession, but from the accused's inability to account for how he came into possession of stolen goods proved to be in his hands soon after the theft.

Possession Soon After Murder Points To Accused Being The Offender

The bench observed that when an accused is found in possession of articles belonging to the deceased shortly after a murder committed for gain and fails to offer a satisfactory explanation, the Court can draw a legitimate inference of guilt. The judges noted that "the burden of proof is on the accused person to explain as to how he came in possession of the stolen property, since the prosecution has no means to ascertain his knowledge."

"The presumption contemplated under this illustration is not a presumption as to the fact of possession, but the presumption of guilt which arises from the accused not accounting for his possession of stolen goods."

Murder And Robbery As Integral Parts Of One Transaction

Placing reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (1983), the Court held that if murder and robbery are proved to be integral parts of the same transaction, the presumption applies to both. The bench noted that the appellant's false denial of the recovery of the jewelry was itself an incriminating circumstance that strengthened the prosecution's case.

Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Established Beyond Doubt

The Court applied the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) to evaluate the circumstantial evidence. It found that the "last seen" evidence provided by several witnesses, who saw the appellant entering and leaving the house carrying a handbag shortly before the discovery of the body, formed a complete chain pointing unerringly towards his guilt.

"When these circumstances are considered together, they form a complete chain leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, excluding every other possible hypothesis consistent with innocence."

Scientific Evidence Corroborates Ocular Testimony

The bench dismissed the appellant's contention that the fingerprint and footprint evidence were procedurally flawed. It held that minor procedural irregularities do not affect the evidentiary value of expert reports when the scientific evidence remains unimpeached. The Court noted that the fingerprint and footprint reports marked under Ex.P.11 conclusively established the appellant's presence at the scene of the crime.

Alternative Theory Of Family Dispute Rejected For Lack Of Evidence

The appellant had suggested that the murder might have been committed by other family members due to a partition dispute. However, the Court found this theory to be a "mere suggestion" without any evidentiary foundation. The bench observed that the defence failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to probabilise the existence of such a dispute, rendering the alternative theory wholly untenable.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established every incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. Finding no infirmity in the trial court's appreciation of oral, documentary, and scientific evidence, the bench dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and life sentence. The Court also directed the payment of Rs. 25,000 as remuneration to the Legal Aid Counsel for his assistance in the matter.

Date of Decision: June 25, 2026