2026:MHC:2291BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On:16.06.2026

Pronounced On: 25.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.A(MD).No.54 of 2024

Chandrasekar ... Appellant/Sole Accused

Vs.

The State rep., by,

The Inspector of Police,

Dindigul Town South Police Station,

Dindigul District.

Cr.No.34 of 2019.

... Respondent / Complainant

PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code, to call for the records in S.C.No.12 of 2020 dated 27.02.2023

passed by the Learned Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul District, and to set

aside the same.

For Appellant: Mr.Ponkarthikeyan

Legal Aid Counsel

For Respondent : Mr.Venkatesh

Counsel For State of TN (Crl.Side)

1/28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J,)

The appellant / accused has preferred the present appeal challenging the

judgment made in S.C. No.12 of 2020 dated 15.03.2024 by the Fast Track

Mahila Court (Sessions Court), Dindigul, whereby he was convicted and

sentenced in the following manner:

S.No. Sentence of Law

Sentence of

Imprisonment

Fine

1 Section 449 IPC

10 years

Rigorous

Imprisonment

Rs.1,000/-; in default, to

undergo 6 months Simple

Imprisonment

2 Section 380 IPC

6 years

Rigorous

Imprisonment

Rs.1,000/-; in default, to

undergo 6 months Simple

Imprisonment

3 Section 302 IPC

Life

Imprisonment

Rs.5,000/-; in default, to

undergo 1 year Simple

Imprisonment

2. Facts of the case :

2.1. According to the prosecution, the deceased was a resident of

Ariyanoor Village, Dindigul District. On 23.01.2019, while she was alone in the

upstairs portion of her house, the accused, with the intention of committing

robbery and causing her death, criminally trespassed into the house and brutally

2/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

stabbed her to death. After committing the murder, the accused allegedly

removed 23½ sovereigns of gold jewellery, a mobile phone, cash of Rs.

13,000/-, and an ATM card belonging to the deceased.

2.2. At the relevant point of time, the husband of the deceased was

employed abroad. When he was unable to reach his wife over the phone, he got

worried and informed P.W.1, the sister of the deceased. P.W.1 immediately

proceeded to the house and found the deceased lying dead with multiple stab

injuries. She thereafter lodged a complaint before P.W.28, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, who registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2019.

2.3. Initially, the case was registered under Section 304 IPC.

Subsequently, P.W.29, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation. He

visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough

Sketch, conducted an inquest, examined the witnesses, and collected the

material objects available at the scene. Upon investigation, he found prima

facie materials indicating that the occurrence was a case of murder for gain.

Accordingly, the case was altered to offences punishable under Sections 449,

302 and 380 IPC, and the investigation was proceeded with.

3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2.4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

identified the involvement of the accused and arrested him on 25.01.2019 in the

presence of P.Ws.17 and 18. The accused allegedly gave a voluntary

confession, pursuant to which several incriminating articles, including the

stolen gold jewels and other material objects, were recovered from an auto-

rickshaw which was found in his possession. Based on the said recovery and

the other incriminating materials collected during investigation, the accused

was remanded to judicial custody.

2.5. The Investigating Officer thereafter forwarded the recovered articles,

including the bloodstained clothes and other material objects, for scientific

examination. Subsequently, P.W.31, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

continued the investigation by examining the remaining witnesses and

obtaining the reports of the Fingerprint Expert, Footprint Expert, Handwriting

Expert and the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completion of the

investigation and receipt of all expert reports, the final report was laid before

the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

2.6. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences in

P.R.C. No.9 of 2019, furnished copies of the prosecution records to the accused

4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and, since the offences were exclusively triable by

the Court of Session, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section

209 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter took the case on file as

Sessions Case No.12 of 2020.

2.7. Upon the appearance of the accused, the learned trial Judge framed

the necessary charges, which were read over and explained to him. The accused

denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

2.8. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 32,

marked Exhibits P1 to P32, and produced Material Objects 1 to 28. After the

prosecution evidence was concluded, the accused was examined under Section

313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against

him. He denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded

complete innocence. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf

of the defence.

2.9. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned

trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offences charged, convicted him, and

imposed the sentences as detailed in the judgment. Aggrieved by the said

conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.

5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. When the appeal was taken up, this Court noticed that no counsel

appeared on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to

be produced through video conferencing from the prison. Upon his appearance,

this Court enquired whether he desired legal assistance at the expense of the

State. The appellant expressed his willingness to avail legal aid. Consequently,

this Court appointed Mr. Pungathiyan, learned Legal Aid Counsel, an

experienced member of the Bar having more than sixteen years of standing in

criminal law and who has been effectively conducting criminal matters before

this Court, to represent the appellant.

4. The learned Legal Aid Counsel, after meticulously going through the

entire records threadbare, advanced the following submissions:

4.1. The learned counsel contended that there existed a long-standing

dispute between P.W.1, the deceased and the other family members with regard

to partition of the ancestral properties, thereby indicating a strong motive for

some other person to commit the offence. According to him, the investigating

agency failed to consider this aspect and hastily implicated the appellant.

6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.2. It was further submitted that the house of the deceased had a rear

entrance, providing easy access to outsiders. Therefore, the possibility of some

unknown person entering through the back entrance, committing the murder

and escaping from the scene cannot be ruled out. However, the Investigating

Officer failed to investigate in this angle and done lopsided investigation and

falsely framed the case against the appellant.

4.3. The learned counsel next contended that there was considerable

delay in the registration of the First Information Report after the receipt of

information from P.W.1, and that such delay remained unexplained, thereby

creating serious doubt regarding the genesis of the prosecution case.

4.4. It was further argued that, according to the prosecution itself, P.W.3,

the father of the deceased, was present in the ground floor of the very same

house at the relevant point of time. Had such a brutal murder been committed in

the upstairs portion, and when the deceased had resisted the attack, she would

have shouted and screamed, which would have drawn the attention of her

father. The complete absence of any such evidence renders the prosecution

version highly improbable.

7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.5. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of the

witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused entering or leaving the house

is wholly unreliable. None of those witnesses spoke about hearing any out cry

or noticing any suspicious movement during the relevant time. Their evidence,

therefore, appears to have been subsequently introduced only to create a false

chain of circumstances against the appellant.

4.6. The learned counsel also assailed the recovery proceedings.

According to him, the alleged recovery of the jewels and other material objects

pursuant to the confession of the accused is highly doubtful. One of the

attesting witnesses to the recovery had been treated partly hostile, thereby

rendering the recovery proceedings unreliable. Once the recovery itself

becomes doubtful, the entire prosecution case collapses, as there is no other

convincing incriminating evidence connecting the appellant with the crime.

4.7. Placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W.8, the learned counsel

further submitted that P.W.8's son had initially been detained by the police for

more than a day and was subsequently released. This circumstance, according

to the defence, probabilises the contention that the investigating agency had

initially suspected involvement of other persons but later falsely implicated the

appellant only to close the investigation.

8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.8. The learned counsel also challenged the reliance placed by the trial

Court upon the doctrine of res gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence

Act, contending that there was no contemporaneous or proximate transaction so

as to attract the application of the said provision.

4.9. It was further contended that neither the fingerprint evidence nor the

footprint evidence was properly collected or scientifically established so as to

connect the appellant with the occurrence. In the absence of reliable scientific

evidence, according to the learned counsel, the appellant can not be convicted.

4.10. The learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court erroneously

invoked the theory of "last seen together". According to him, there is absolutely

no evidence to show that the deceased was last seen in the company of the

appellant immediately prior to the occurrence. In the absence of such evidence,

the doctrine of last seen together has no application whatsoever.

4.11. In sum and substance, the learned counsel contended that the

appellant has been falsely implicated only to close the investigation in haste,

and therefore prayed that the conviction and sentence be set aside and the

appellant be acquitted of all the charges.

9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the

judgment of conviction and sentence.

5.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the

contention regarding delay in the registration of the FIR is wholly

misconceived. The materials on record clearly establish that immediately upon

receipt of the information, the police registered the FIR at about 3.00 p.m. The

interval between the occurrence and registration of the case has been

satisfactorily explained by the prosecution and does not cast any suspicion

about the registration of the case.

5.2. With regard to the recovery, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that the recovery witness was treated partly hostile only in respect of

certain omissions. During further examination and cross-examination, the

witness substantially supported the prosecution regarding the recovery. Merely

because a witness was declared partly hostile on certain aspects, his testimony

cannot be discarded in its entirety, particularly when the recovery stands

corroborated by other evidence on record.

5.3. It was further submitted that the stolen gold jewels and other articles

belonging to the deceased were recovered from the possession of the appellant

10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

immediately after the occurrence. Such instant recovery and unexplained

possession attracts the presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the

Indian Evidence Act, namely, that a person found in possession of stolen

property soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the property

knowing it to be stolen, unless he offers a satisfactory explanation. Where theft

and murder form part of the same transaction, the said presumption legitimately

extends to the offence of murder for gain. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submitted that the said principle has been consistently recognised by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions.

5.4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the

alleged motive arising out of partition disputes among the family members is a

mere suggestion without any evidentiary foundation. No material whatsoever

has been produced to probabilise such a theory.

5.5. Lastly, it was submitted that the investigation was conducted fairly

and using scientific technology. Apart from recovering the stolen properties, the

Investigating Officer collected fingerprint evidence, footprint evidence, hair

samples and other forensic materials from the scene of occurrence, all of which

substantially corroborate the prosecution case. The complete chain of

11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

circumstances has been firmly established, leaving no reasonable doubt

regarding the guilt of the appellant. Hence, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor prayed that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court

be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by

the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire records, and examined the

relevant precedents relied upon by them.

7. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the

conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is legally sustainable?.

8. The prosecution case is that PW10 is the husband of the deceased and

was employed abroad at the relevant point of time. PW3, the father of the

deceased, categorically deposed that the deceased was residing in the first floor

of the house, while PW2 was residing in the ground floor. During the Pongal

festival, PW3 had visited his daughter's house and was staying there for a few

days. PW7 is the minor son of the deceased, and PW8 was employed as the

domestic servant in the deceased's house. The evidence further discloses that

the accused was the brother of the deceased's husband. He had earlier settled in

12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mumbai and was allegedly involved in certain theft cases. Thereafter, he shifted

his residence to Dindigul. PW8 introduced the accused to the deceased, who

thereafter engaged him for carrying out household errands, such as purchasing

domestic articles and attending to house hold chores. The accused was also

operating an autorickshaw. Taking advantage of the confidence reposed on him,

the accused, on 23.01.2019, criminally trespassed into the house of the

deceased while she was alone, armed with a deadly weapon. He brutally

stabbed her to death and thereafter committed theft of her gold jewels, cash,

mobile phone and ATM card. The evidence of PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW11

and PW15 consistently establishes that they had seen the accused entering the

house of the deceased through the ground floor and proceeding upstairs shortly

before the occurrence. They further witnessed him coming out of the house

carrying a handbag after a short while. Since the accused had been regularly

visiting the house to assist the deceased in domestic work, no suspicion initially

arose regarding his movements. Subsequently, when PW10, the husband of the

deceased, attempted to contact her over the phone from abroad and had no

response, he informed PW2 and requested her to visit the deceased. PW2

immediately proceeded to the house and found the deceased lying dead with

multiple stab injuries. Thereafter, PW8 and PW9 also reached the place of

occurrence and confirmed that the deceased had been murdered. During the

course of investigation, PW29, the Investigating Officer, unearthed the

13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

involvement of the accused. The accused was arrested on 25.01.2019 in the

presence of PW17 and PW18. Pursuant to his voluntary disclosure statement

admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the stolen jewels,

mobile phone and ATM card belonging to the deceased were recovered from

the autorickshaw in his possession. Apart from the recovery, the ocular

evidence of PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW11 and PW15 consistently proves that

the accused was the person who entered the house during the relevant period

and came out shortly thereafter. There is absolutely no evidence that any other

person entered the house between the time the deceased was last seen alive and

the discovery of her dead body.

9. The learned trial Judge rightly appreciated the cumulative effect of the

"last seen" evidence, the recovery of stolen articles at the instance of the

accused, and the surrounding circumstances. Though the trial Court referred to

the principle of res gestae, the present case is more appropriately governed by

the settled principles relating to circumstantial evidence, last seen together, and

discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. When these circumstances are

considered together, they form a complete chain leading only to the hypothesis

of the guilt of the accused, excluding every other possible hypothesis consistent

with innocence. In this regard, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in

(1984) 4 SCC 116, regarding proof by circumstantial evidence; State of U.P. v.

Satish reported in (2005) 3 SCC 114, concerning the doctrine of "last seen

together"; and Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor reported in AIR 1947 PC 67,

explaining the scope of discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,

squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the

recovery has not been proved in accordance with law. This contention cannot

be accepted. PW29, the Investigating Officer, has clearly deposed regarding the

arrest of the accused on 25.01.2019. The attesting witnesses, PW17 and PW18,

have consistently deposed that the accused voluntarily made a disclosure

statement, pursuant to which he identified the autorickshaw and produced the

stolen jewels belonging to the deceased concealed in the Autorickshaw. The

recovery mahazar was duly prepared in their presence and attested by them.

Although PW17 and PW18 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination,

nothing material has been elicited to discredit their testimony or cast any doubt

upon the recovery proceedings. This Court, therefore, finds that the recovery

has been proved strictly in accordance with law. Further, PW1 and PW10 have

specifically identified the recovered jewels as belonging to the deceased.

15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Consequently, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the

stolen properties recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement belonged to the

deceased.

11. The defence further attempted to suggest that the murder might have

been committed by some other person owing to an alleged partition dispute

within the family. This suggestion was merely made during cross-examination

of PW1. However, no documentary or oral evidence whatsoever has been

produced to establish the existence of any such partition dispute. On the

contrary, the evidence shows that PW3, the father of the deceased, was present

in the house during the relevant period, and nothing has been elicited from him

to probabilise such a theory. A mere suggestion made during cross-examination,

unsupported by any substantive evidence, cannot create a reasonable doubt

regarding the prosecution case. Accordingly, the alternative theory projected by

the defence is wholly untenable and deserves to be rejected.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that PW8,

the housemaid of the deceased, deposed that immediately after receiving

information from the husband of the deceased regarding her unanswered phone

calls, she sent her son to the house of the deceased. According to PW8, her son

16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

was the first person to enter the house after the occurrence. It was further

submitted that the son of PW8 was taken to the police station and subjected to

enquiry for one day. However, no effective investigation was conducted in that

regard. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the possibility of the

involvement of some other person in the commission of the offence cannot be

ruled out.

13. The learned counsel further submitted that there existed a rear

entrance to the house and that an unidentified person could have entered

through the back door and committed the murder. It was argued that the

prosecution failed to eliminate this possibility and, therefore, the appellant is

entitled to the benefit of doubt.

14. This Court is unable to accept the said submissions. It is true that

PW8 received information from PW10, the husband of the deceased, who was

employed abroad, that the deceased was not responding to his phone calls.

Immediately thereafter, PW8 sent her son to the house of the deceased. On

reaching the house, he found the deceased lying dead with multiple stab

injuries. Shortly thereafter, several other persons also reached the place of

occurrence. The Investigating Officer, therefore, examined the son of PW8

17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

during the course of investigation to verify the sequence of events. The

evidence on record further discloses that the Investigating Officer did not

mechanically conclude that the appellant was the offender. On the contrary, a

detailed investigation was conducted by obtaining the reports of the fingerprint

expert, footprint expert, handwriting expert and other scientific experts. Only

after analysing the entire scientific evidence along with the oral evidence did

the Investigating Officer arrive at the conclusion that the appellant alone was

involved in the commission of the offence and that no other person had any

complicity in the occurrence. The fingerprint and footprint expert reports

marked under Ex.P.11, clearly established the presence of the appellant at the

scene of occurrence. Though certain minor discrepancies were pointed out

regarding the forwarding of the specimen prints to the Court and the Forensic

Science Laboratory, such procedural irregularities do not affect the evidentiary

value of the expert reports. The scientific evidence itself remains unimpeached

and conclusively establishes that the fingerprints and footprints recovered from

the scene correspond with those of the appellant. There is no material infirmity

in the expert evidence warranting its rejection.

15. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has

successfully established the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence

18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

at the relevant point of time and has ruled out the involvement of any third

person.

16. So far as the recovery is concerned, this Court has already held that

the recovery of the stolen articles has been proved beyond reasonable doubt

through the cogent evidence of PW17 and PW18, the attesting witnesses,

coupled with the testimony of PW29, the Investigating Officer. Once the

recovery of the stolen properties belonging to the deceased was made from the

accused is proved and the appellant is found to have been in possession of

those properties soon after the murder, the presumption under Section 114

illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 squarely applies. where the

accused is found in possession of the articles belonging to the deceased soon

after a murder committed for gain, and fails to offer any satisfactory

explanation for such possession, the Court can legitimately draw the inference

that the accused committed both the theft and the murder.

17. This Court also in recent judgment in the case of Crl.A.(MD)No.1117

of 2023 has applied the above principle and the relevant paragraphs are as

follows:-

“33. It will be relevant to take note of Section 114 of the

Indian Evidence Act corresponding to Section 119 of Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023. For proper appreciation, the same is

19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

extracted hereunder: “The Court may presume existence of

certain facts the Court may presume the existence of any fact

which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the

common course of natural events, human conduct and public

and private business, in their relation to the facts of the

particular case. Illustration The court may presume - (a) That a

man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is

either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be

stolen, unless he can account for his possession.”

34. The presumptions provided under this provision gives

room for a Court to exercise its power of inference and the

Court can throw the burden of proof on whichever side it

chooses. Drawing of presumption under this section is

discretionary and not mandatory. A presumption once drawn

under this provision can be rebutted by leading cogent evidence

to the contrary. At this juncture, this Court recalls a metaphor

alluded to the American Judge Lamm, J., that “presumptions

are like bats, flitting in the twilight but disappearing in the

sunshine of facts.”

The effect of this provision is to enable the Courts to use

their own common sense and experience in judging the effect of

particular facts and that is the reason why illustrations have

been given based on decided cases in English Law. The section

authorises the Court to make certain presumptions of fact and

this presumption naturally arise on the facts of the case.

36. A presumption is not evidence or proof. It only shows

on whom the burden of proof lies, in effect, presumptions of law

20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

or fact may shift the burden of proof and they may be rebutted

not only by evidence but also by presumption of law or fact. A

man is presumed to know and intend the natural consequences

of his acts. That is the basis on which the entire provision has

been brought into Indian Evidence Act/Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam, 2023. In this provision, the Court may presume the

existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened

having regard to the common course of natural events, human

conduct and public and private business in their relation to the

facts of the case.

37. For the facts of the present case, illustration (a) will

have a lot of relevance. The illustration raises two

presumptions, viz., that the person in possession of stolen goods

soon after the theft, is either (a) thief or (b) has received the

goods knowing them to be stolen. The presumption

contemplated under this illustration is not a presumption as to

the fact of possession, but the presumption of guilt which arises

from the accused not accounting for his possession of stolen

goods, which he is proved to be in possession soon after the

theft.

38. Where a person is found in possession of the fruits of

crime and unless he explains as to how he came into possession

thereof, two inferences can be drawn by the court; first – that

somebody sold or gave the same to him or second - he removed

them while committing the crime. Both these facts would be

within the personal knowledge of the possessor. Hence, the

burden of proof is on the accused person to explain as to how he

21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

came in possession of the stolen property, since the prosecution

has no means to ascertain his knowledge.

39. At this juncture it is also relevant to take note of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Earabhadrappa v. State of

Karnataka reported in AIR 1983 SC 446 and the relevant

portion is extracted hereunder:

“13.This is a case where murder and robbery are

proved to have been integral parts of one and the same

transaction and therefore the presumption arising under

illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that not

only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but

also committed robbery of her gold ornaments which form

part of the same transaction. The prosecution has led

sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the

commission of the crime. The sudden disappearance of the

appellant from the house of P.W.3 on the morning of March

22, 1979 when it was discovered that the deceased had been

strangulated to death and relieved of her gold ornaments,

coupled with the circumstance that he was absconding for a

period of over one year till he was apprehended by P.W.26 at

village Hosahally on March 29, 1980, taken with the

circumstance that he made the statement Ex.P-35 immediately

upon his arrest leading to the discovery of the stolen articles,

must necessarily raise the inference that the appellant alone

and no one else was guilty of having committed the murder of

the deceased and robbery of her gold ornaments. The

appellant had no satisfactory explanation to offer for his

possession of the stolen property. On the contrary, he denied

that the stolen property was recovered from him. The false

denial by itself is an incriminating circumstance. The nature

22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of presumption under illustration (a) to Section 114, must

depend upon the nature of the evidence adduced. No fixed time

limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is

recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own

facts. The question as to what amounts to recent possession

sufficient to justify the presumption of guilt varies according

as the stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from

hand to hand. If the stolen articles were such as were not

likely to pass readily from hand to hand, the period of one

year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly

when the appellant had been absconding during that period.

There was no lapse of time between the date of his arrest and

the recovery of the stolen property.”

40. In the above case, the accused person is said to have

committed the murder and stolen gold ornaments from the

deceased. Like, in the case in hand, the recovery of the gold

jewelry was based on the admissible portion of the confession

given by the accused person. The Apex Court held that where

the murder and robbery are proved to have been integral parts

of one and the same transaction, the presumption under

illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act

corresponding to 119 (a) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,

2023 is that not only the accused person committed the murder

of the deceased but also committed robbery of the golden

ornaments, which forms part of the same transaction. If the

accused person had no satisfactory explanation to offer for his

possession of the stolen property, the legal presumption will

apply and it will be put against the accused person ”

23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18. The learned counsel further contended that there was an unexplained

delay in lodging the First Information Report. This submission is also devoid of

merit. The evidence on record clearly establishes that PW10, who was

employed abroad, first realised that the deceased was not answering his

repeated phone calls. He immediately contacted PW8 and PW2, requesting

them to verify her well-being. PW2, PW8 and PW9 immediately proceeded to

the house, where they found the deceased lying dead. Thereafter, without any

undue delay, the complaint was lodged at about 3.00 p.m. The sequence of

events has been consistently spoken to by the prosecution witnesses and

satisfactorily explains the time taken in lodging the complaint.

19. The learned counsel lastly contended that the appellant had in fact

been arrested even prior to 25.01.2019 and that the prosecution had suppressed

the true facts regarding his arrest. This contention is wholly unsupported by any

evidence. There is absolutely no oral or documentary material on record to

probabilise such a plea. A mere suggestion made during cross-examination

cannot displace the positive evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the

date and manner of arrest.

24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

20. Upon an independent re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this

Court finds that every incriminating circumstance has been established beyond

reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is complete and points unerringly

towards the guilt of the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge has correctly

appreciated the oral, documentary and scientific evidence and has rightly

recorded the order of conviction.

21. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the

evidence had not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. This

Court has independently reappreciated the entire evidence on record and finds

that the learned trial Judge has meticulously analysed both the oral and

documentary evidence. The findings recorded are fully supported by the

evidence available on record and are in consonance with the settled principles

governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence.

22. The prosecution has successfully established every incriminating

circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is complete

and points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for any

reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. Consequently, this Court

finds no infirmity either in the conviction or in the sentence imposed by the

learned Sessions Judge. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed.

25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

23. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit whatsoever in the appeal.

The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, and the conviction and sentence

imposed by the Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul District, in S.C.No.12 of

2020 dated 27.02.2023 are hereby confirmed.

24. This Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable

assistance rendered by the learned Legal Aid Counsel, through the High Court

Legal Services Committee, who meticulously analysed the entire evidence on

record and advanced comprehensive and well-reasoned submissions, which

greatly assisted this Court in the disposal of the appeal. This Court further

directs the concerned Legal Services Authority/High Court Legal Services

Committee to pay a remuneration of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five

Thousand only) to the learned Legal Aid Counsel within a period of two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

[N.A.V.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]

25.06.2026

NCC :Yes/No

Index :Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

dss

26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1.The Inspector of Police,

Dindigul Town South Police Station,

Dindigul District.

2.The Section Officer,

VR Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

dss

Judgment made in

Crl.A(MD).No.54 of 2024

Dated: 25.06.2026

28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis