ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Where the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstances including last seen theory, scientific evidence, recovery of incriminating material, and absence of explanation by the accused, conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable even in the absence of eyewitnesses. (Paras 10

Friday, January 9, 2026

Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Where the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstances including last seen theory, scientific evidence, recovery of incriminating material, and absence of explanation by the accused, conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable even in the absence of eyewitnesses. (Paras 10–11, 14, 18)

advocatemmmohan

1. Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence

Where the prosecution establishes a complete chain of circumstances including last seen theory, scientific evidence, recovery of incriminating material, and absence of explanation by the accused, conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable even in the absence of eyewitnesses.
(Paras 10–11, 14, 18)

2. Circumstantial Evidence – Requirement of Complete Chain

In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all circumstances which, taken cumulatively, lead to the sole conclusion of guilt of the accused and rule out every other hypothesis.
(Paras 10, 13–14)

3. Last Seen Theory – Evidentiary Value

Last seen theory, though a weak circumstance by itself, assumes significance when coupled with proximity of time, corroborative evidence, and failure of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the deceased met with death.
(Paras 11–13)

4. Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden on Accused

When the prosecution establishes that the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances leading to the death of the victim; failure to do so becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
(Paras 11–12, 14–16)

5. Fingerprint Evidence – Scientific Evidence – Reliability

Fingerprints developed from material objects at the scene of offence and matched with pre-existing fingerprint records of an accused with criminal antecedents constitute strong incriminating scientific evidence linking the accused to the crime.
(Paras 3(vi), 17–18)

6. Criminal Antecedents – Fingerprint Record of Ex-Convict

Where the accused is a previous convict and his fingerprint records are lawfully available, comparison of chance prints with such records is valid and admissible; absence of Magistrate’s presence at the time of comparison does not vitiate the evidence.
(Para 17)

7. Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Corroborative Circumstance

Recovery of blood-stained clothes at the behest of the accused, coupled with forensic confirmation of human blood, constitutes a corroborative link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
(Para 14)

8. Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Failure to Explain Incriminating Circumstances

A bare plea of false implication under Section 313 Cr.P.C., without explanation of incriminating circumstances such as blood-stained clothes or last seen evidence, is insufficient and strengthens the prosecution case.
(Paras 14–16, 18)

9. Appeal Against Conviction – Scope of Interference

Where the Trial Court has properly appreciated oral, documentary, and scientific evidence and recorded a reasoned finding of guilt, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the conviction.
(Paras 18–20)

ANALYSIS

The prosecution case was entirely circumstantial, as there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The Court identified and examined the following key circumstances:

1. Last Seen Together

The prosecution examined P.Ws.6, 7 and 10, who deposed that the accused and the deceased were last seen together at a brandy shop and thereafter leaving together on a motorcycle. The Court held that:

Criminal antecedents of P.W.10 alone do not render his testimony unreliable.
Evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, being independent auto drivers, corroborated the last seen circumstance.

2. Failure of Accused to Explain (Section 106 Evidence Act)

Once last seen was established, the burden shifted to the accused to explain the circumstances of death. The accused failed to offer any explanation, thereby adding a missing link to the prosecution chain.

3. Fingerprint Evidence

The fingerprint expert (P.W.12) developed chance prints from beer bottles (M.O.4) recovered at the scene. One chance print matched with the left thumb impression of the accused available in fingerprint records of ex-convicts.
The Court held:

Scientific fingerprint evidence is a strong corroborative circumstance.
No illegality arises merely because fingerprints were not freshly taken before a Magistrate.

4. Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes

The clothes recovered at the instance of the accused (M.O.7) contained human blood as per RFSL report. The accused offered no explanation for the presence of blood stains.

5. Medical Evidence

Medical evidence established violent assault resulting in death, consistent with the prosecution theory.

Conclusion on Evidence

The Court found that:

Last seen theory,
Fingerprint evidence,
Recovery of blood-stained clothes, and
Failure to explain incriminating circumstances,

together formed a complete and unbroken chain, pointing only to the guilt of the accused.

RATIO DECIDENDI

In a case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution proves last seen together, scientific fingerprint evidence linking the accused to the scene of offence, recovery of blood-stained articles at the instance of the accused, and the accused fails to explain incriminating circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, conviction under Section 302 IPC is legally sustainable.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN