Bombay HC: Absence of Motive Not Fatal in Circumstantial Evidence Case Under S.302 IPC If Chain of Events Unerringly Points to Guilt - 2025-09-04

Bombay High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Murder Case, Stresses Strength of 'Last Seen Together' Theory

Mumbai, India – The Bombay High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentences of two men convicted for the 2012 murder of their co-worker, emphasizing that in cases built on circumstantial evidence, the absence of a proven motive is not fatal if the chain of evidence is complete and points unerringly to the accused.

A division bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Advait M. Sethna dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Mohan Madhav Chaurasiya and Ramdeen Khilawan Loniya. They were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for the murder of Samsher under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to the night of November 22-23, 2012. The victim, Samsher, and the primary accused, Mohan Chaurasiya, were employees at a juice center in Govandi owned by Zulphikar Ghachi. Both used to sleep inside the shop after work. The second accused, Ramdeen Loniya, was a friend of Mohan.

On the morning of November 23, 2012, Zulphikar found the juice center's shutter down. Upon opening it, he discovered Samsher's body inside, with his hands tied and face covered. An immediate search for Mohan revealed he was missing, and his phone was switched off. An FIR was promptly lodged, leading to Mohan's arrest from his native village and Ramdeen's subsequent arrest.

The trial court convicted both men based on a series of nine interconnected circumstances, including the fact that the accused were last seen with the deceased and were absconding after the incident.

---

Arguments in the High Court

Appellants' Submissions:

The defence counsel argued that the prosecution's case was weak as it failed to establish any motive for the murder. They contended that the key witnesses were unreliable, their police statements were recorded after a significant delay, and the evidence was inconsistent. The defence pointed out that without a clear reason for the crime, convicting the appellants based solely on circumstances was unjust.

State's Submissions:

The prosecution, represented by the learned APP, countered that while motive is important, its absence does not automatically negate a strong case built on circumstantial evidence. The State heavily relied on the "last seen together" theory, supported by the testimony of the victim's employer (PW-1), his father (PW-2), and a neighbouring tea-stall owner (PW-3). The prosecution argued that Mohan’s disappearance from the shop where he regularly slept, immediately after the murder, was highly incriminating conduct. He failed to provide any explanation for his whereabouts, a burden placed on him by Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

---

Court's Reasoning and Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal precedents on circumstantial evidence. The bench acknowledged the absence of a proven motive but found it was not a fatal flaw in this specific case.

On Motive in Circumstantial Cases:

Citing Supreme Court judgments in Subhash Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Chetan Vs. State of Karnataka , the bench reiterated a settled legal principle:

"The law is now well-settled that while proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal... in a case based on circumstantial evidence where proved circumstances complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of no consequence."

Pivotal Judgment Excerpts:

The court placed significant weight on the "last seen together" theory, which was corroborated by consistent witness testimonies. The judgment highlighted the damning nature of Mohan's conduct:

"This is a strong incriminating circumstance which has to be seen in the background of the departure from routine as far as the accused No.1 is concerned. The evidence shows that the accused No.1 Mohan used to sleep in the same shop throughout his employment... Therefore, the accused No.1 was expected to be in the shop throughout the night but he had disappeared. The dead body was lying inside the shop and the accused No.1 had simply absconded without informing anyone else."

The court also noted that Mohan’s defence in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement—that he had never even been to Mumbai—was patently false and further weakened his position. While the court disregarded the testimony of one witness (PW-4, the autorickshaw driver) due to a belatedly recorded statement, it found the evidence of the other key witnesses to be "satisfactory and consistent."

---

Final Decision

Concluding that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of events pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's decision.

"Considering the above discussion, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt," the bench stated, dismissing both appeals and confirming the life sentences.