Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rohan Gurung, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of a mentally challenged woman, Poornima, on the intervening night of 10th and 11th July 2011 at Panaji, Goa. The prosecution case was that the appellant was last seen with the deceased at KTC bus stand, smoking, drinking, and kissing her. He then took her to bushes behind Sulabh Toilets, had sexual intercourse, and smothered her to death. He was found coming out of the bushes wearing only underwear, and the deceased was found naked. The trial court convicted him based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence, his conduct, and medical evidence. The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the appellant. The court noted that the absence of motive does not affect the case when other circumstances conclusively establish guilt. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence where appellant was last seen with deceased, his conduct after incident, and medical evidence consistent with smothering - Held that the chain of circumstances is complete and points only to the guilt of the appellant (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Motive - Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Absence of motive does not vitiate conviction if other circumstances conclusively establish guilt - Held that motive is not a sine qua non for conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC upheld.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- chain of circumstances must be complete
- motive not essential in every case
- conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence if chain is complete
