Circumstantial evidence chain and guest house records establish guilt despite absence of motive.

The Appellant-accused hired an Innova car driven by the deceased, Mazharkhan Pathan, on 30.01.2012 for a trip to Rajasthan after using a false name and claiming to be a Muslim

On 31.01.2012, they checked into Room No. 110 at Hotel Janpath, Mehsana

Shortly after, hotel staff heard a disturbance.

Upon knocking, the Appellant pushed the manager, jumped from the rear gallery to escape, and was apprehended with an ankle injury

The deceased was found inside the room with multiple fatal stab wounds and later died

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC on 31.08.2013

The Appellant challenged the conviction, claiming the presence of a third person named Mayurraj Pathan and alleging a break in the chain of circumstantial evidence

Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence unerringly pointing to the guilt of the Appellant to the exclusion of any other hypothesis

Whether the lack of established motive and the alleged presence of a third person in the hotel room create reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case

The Court primarily applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the punishment for murder

It relied on the five golden principles ("Panchsheel") for circumstantial evidence established in *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra*

The Court invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, placing the burden on the accused to explain facts especially within his knowledge when "last seen" with the deceased in a locked room

Furthermore, it applied principles from *Raja v. State* regarding the evidentiary value of dock identification in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP)

The Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence unbroken.

First, medical evidence from PW-1 confirmed the death was homicidal, involving three grievous injuries to vital organs sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature

Second, the "last seen" theory was established via PW-2 and PW-7 (hotel managers) and the hotel register (Exh. 18), which confirmed only two persons—the accused and the deceased—checked into Room No. 110

Third, the Appellant’s conduct (Section 8, Evidence Act), specifically his attempt to flee by jumping from a gallery upon being discovered, indicated a "consciousness of guilt"

The Court rejected the defense's "third person" theory, noting the Appellant failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 to identify this person or provide proof of their presence

Finally, the Court held that while motive was not explicitly proved, the Appellant's use of a false identity at the inception of the journey demonstrated premeditated intent

The Court upheld the judgment and order dated 31.08.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana

The appeal was dismissed, and the life imprisonment sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC was confirmed