Court Confirms Life Sentence for Accused; Highlights Role of Circumstantial Evidence and Presumption of Guilt Under Evidence Act
In a significant judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of Chandrasekar, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the brutal murder and robbery of a woman in Dindigul District. The Division Bench, comprising Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan, delivered the verdict on June 25, 2026, reaffirming the trial court's decision.
The case revolved around the murder of a woman in her home in Ariyanoor Village on January 23, 2019, during a robbery. Chandrasekar, the accused, was found guilty by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul, and sentenced under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 for murder, Section 380 for theft, and Section 449 for house trespass.
The High Court's judgment underscored the importance of circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of "last seen together" in establishing guilt. The accused was observed entering and exiting the victim's residence around the time of the murder, and stolen items belonging to the deceased were found in his possession shortly after the crime. This led the Court to apply the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows the assumption of guilt when an accused is found with stolen property soon after a crime involving theft and murder.
The defense, represented by Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Ponkarthikeyan, argued the case was mishandled, citing possible motives involving family disputes and questioning the integrity of the evidence and the recovery process. However, the prosecution, led by Mr. Venkatesh, countered these claims, emphasizing the thoroughness of the investigation and the consistency of witness testimonies.
The Court also commended the effective role of Legal Aid Counsel in providing quality legal representation to the appellant, ordering a remuneration of Rs. 25,000 to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee.
This decision reinforces the judiciary's stance on the admissibility of circumstantial evidence and the pivotal role of presumption in cases involving murder and robbery, providing a crucial precedent for future cases of similar nature.
Bottom line:-
Murder and robbery forming part of the same transaction attract the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to Section 119(a) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), that the person found in possession of stolen property soon after the crime is presumed to have committed both the theft and the murder unless satisfactorily explained.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 114(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 119(a) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 449 IPC, Section 380 IPC, Section 302 IPC
Chandrasekar v. State, (Madras)(Madurai Bench)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2929668
