Conviction based on proximity of last seen theory, established motive, and unexplained disappearance under Section 106.

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, for the murder of four individuals: Smt. Nandrani (65), her daughter Babita (32), and Babita's two minor children, Gunjan (7) and Anshu (5)

The prosecution alleged that the appellant was in a live-in relationship with Babita and, following an altercation regarding marriage and financial dependency on the night of 23.06.2009, he strangulated all four victims to death

Following the discovery of the bodies, the appellant absconded, was later apprehended after a brief gunfight with police, and was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm and ornaments belonging to the deceased

The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, along with sentences under Sections 307 and 404 IPC and the Arms Act

1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction in the absence of ocular witnesses

2. Whether the "last seen together" theory, coupled with the conduct of the accused and recovery of stolen articles, was sufficient to invoke Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act

3. Whether the nature of the crime (killing four people) rendered the theory of a single assailant improbable

The court primarily applied Section 302 of the IPC (Punishment for Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which places the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of a person upon that person

Regarding circumstantial evidence, the Court relied on the "Panchsheel" principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring the chain of evidence to be so complete as to exclude any hypothesis of innocence

It further applied Section 8 of the Evidence Act regarding the relevance of the accused's conduct and referred to Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. to establish that a lack of explanation for the death of someone "last seen" with the accused provides an additional link in the chain of guilt

The Court determined that the prosecution successfully established the "Panchsheel" of circumstantial evidence. Although there were no eyewitnesses, the medical evidence (P.W.-5) confirmed death by ligature strangulation, consistent with the timeline of the "last seen" testimony provided by an independent neighbor (P.W.-3) who heard a quarrel at 9:00 PM the night prior

The Court rejected the defense of impossibility, noting the victims (elderly and children) were physically vulnerable and likely overpowered while asleep

Crucially, the Court invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act because the appellant, who admitted to staying at the house and being in an intimate relationship with Babita, offered no explanation for his sudden disappearance or the bodies found in the morning

His subsequent conduct—fleeing, firing at police, and possessing the deceased's jewelry—constituted strong corroborative evidence of guilt

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court