When Accused Is Last Seen With Deceased, Offers No Explanation, and Flees With Murder Weapon—Presumption Becomes Proof: Madras High Court

“Flight from Scene, Silence in Court, and Knife With Victim’s Blood Complete the Chain”— In a significant ruling Madras High Court upheld the conviction of a man for the murder of a woman found nude and brutally assaulted inside a locked hotel, declaring that when the accused is last seen with the deceased and fails to explain his presence or conduct, such silence under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act can clinch the prosecution case.

Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman dismissed the appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused, including “last seen” theory, recovery of the murder weapon bearing the deceased’s blood group, and the accused’s unexplained flight from the scene.

“No Explanation When You Alone Were Seen With the Victim—Section 106 Evidence Act Makes Silence Incriminating”

The prosecution case was rooted entirely in circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitness to the murder. The deceased, a woman aged between 55–65 years, was found nude and bleeding with over 20 injuries, including signs of strangulation, blunt trauma, and genital assault, inside a hotel in Salem on 25.11.2014.

At the scene, the accused—a hotel worker—was seen inside the premises holding a knife by PW1 and PW7, who forcibly opened the hotel shutter after it remained closed unusually long. The accused immediately fled through the back door, and the deceased’s body was discovered shortly after in a pool of blood.

When questioned under Section 313 CrPC, the accused offered no explanation for his presence, the condition of the deceased, or his flight. The Court invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating:

“It is for the accused to explain what transpired inside the hotel. When incriminating materials are put against the accused and the accused offers no explanation during Section 313 questioning, such failure may be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.”

Quoting Ram Gopal v. State of M.P., (2023) 5 SCC 543, the Court emphasized:

“In view of Section 106, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him... non-explanation becomes crucial when ‘last seen together’ is established.”

“Conduct Speaks—Accused Seen With Knife, Flees From Scene, Weapon Bears Victim’s Blood”

The Court placed heavy reliance on the conduct of the accused, which it held was admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The knife recovered from the accused, M.O.1, contained O+ blood group matching the deceased, as confirmed by Ex.P27 Serology Report.

“When the accused was seen in the premises with the knife where the dead body was found, and the knife also contains the blood group of the deceased, such conduct and silence strengthens the prosecution case,” the Court observed.

The Court rejected defence arguments questioning witness credibility and inconsistencies in the seizure process. Minor contradictions, it held, do not shake the core of a circumstantial case when forensic and ocular evidence align.

“Brutal Assault Proved by Medical Evidence—22 Injuries, Including Sexual Violence”

The Postmortem Report (Ex.P10) and the testimony of PW12 (Medical Officer) documented 22 injuries, including abrasions, contusions, lacerations, and fracture of the tracheal rings. The cause of death was “multiple injuries with evidence of sexual assault.”

“These facts clearly indicate that there was a struggle by the deceased. Homicidal death has been clearly established,” the Court noted.

Although no semen was detected, the Court observed that the presence of genital injuries and circumstantial details adequately supported the prosecution’s narrative of assault before murder.

“Circumstantial Chain Was Complete—Conviction Cannot Be Disturbed”

Reaffirming the law laid down in Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala, (2024) 10 SCC 813, the Court reiterated that:

“The chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion—that is the guilt of the accused.”

The Bench found the trial court’s reasoning sound and declined to interfere:

“In the absence of any explanation from the accused, the circumstances clearly point towards him. We find no infirmity in the prosecution’s case. The Criminal Appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.”

The Madras High Court’s decision sends a strong message on the evidentiary power of conduct, circumstantial reconstruction, and unexplained silence in criminal trials. When forensic evidence, last-seen testimony, and the accused’s conduct form a coherent and consistent whole, even the absence of a direct eyewitness is not fatal to conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was confirmed, and the earlier suspension of sentence was vacated.

Date of Decision: November 5, 2025