Unexplained Possession of Stolen Goods Soon After Murder for Gain Presumes Involvement in Both Crimes

The appellant, the brother of the deceased’s husband, was engaged for household chores in Dindigul. On January 23, 2019, while the deceased was alone, the appellant allegedly trespassed into her home, stabbed her to death, and stole 23.5 sovereigns of gold, cash, a mobile phone, and an ATM card

The deceased's husband, unable to reach her from abroad, alerted P.W.1 and P.W.2, who discovered the body

Following an investigation, the appellant was arrested on January 25, 2019; based on his voluntary confession, the stolen articles were recovered from his auto-rickshaw

The Trial Court (Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul) convicted him under Sections 449, 380, and 302 of the IPC

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of delayed FIR, unreliable recovery, and lack of direct evidence

1. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are legally sustainable based on circumstantial evidence

2. Whether the presumption under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act applies to the recovery of stolen goods in a murder-for-gain case

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 380 (Theft), and Section 449 (House-trespass) of the IPC

It primarily relied on Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows the court to presume a person in possession of stolen goods shortly after a crime is either the thief or has received them knowing them to be stolen

It further integrated the "last seen together" doctrine and the requirements for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence as established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

The Court found the chain of circumstances complete and unerring. First, the testimony of P.W.3, P.W.4, and others established that the appellant was seen entering and leaving the house during the relevant interval, satisfying the "last seen" theory

Second, the Court upheld the recovery of the deceased’s jewels and phone from the appellant’s auto-rickshaw just two days after the incident, invoking the presumption that since the murder and robbery were integral parts of the same transaction, the possessor is presumed to be the murderer

Third, scientific evidence, including fingerprint and footprint expert reports (Ex.P.11), conclusively placed the appellant at the scene

The Court rejected the defense's alternative theory of a partition dispute as a mere unsubstantiated suggestion

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment. The Court also ordered a remuneration of Rs. 25,000 to the Legal Aid Counsel