Evidence – Alleged recovery made from a place accessible to others – Mere recovery and the FSL report, if can sustain the conviction – Appellant convicted u/s.302, IPC and s.25, Arms Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life – Mere recovery and the FSL report, if by itself can sustain the conviction of the appellant when other co-accused having motive was acquitted and the eye-witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case; no evidence of ‘last seen’ was adduced and the alleged motive against the appellant was not proved:
Held: Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – PW-1, the brother of the deceased and the alleged eye-witness of her murder along with his brother, PW-5 have not supported the case of prosecution to prove the presence of the appellant on the spot – Any other circumstance connecting the accused in commission of the offence and to show his presence on spot or with deceased has not been proved by the prosecution – Accused was not named in the FIR initially – His name came up after five days of the incident on suggestion by PW-1 – Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant, a country-made pistol and two live cartridges were allegedly recovered – However, the prosecution did not establish that the said recovery distinctly relates to the commission of the offence or that the weapon so recovered was the same which was used to commit murder so as to constitute a relevant fact distinctively related to the disclosure – The recovery was effected from an iron box lying in a room in the house of the appellant accessible to other family members, wherein various household articles were kept, which were neither seized nor proved examining any independent witness from neighborhood – After the recovery, the pistol and cartridges were kept in the Malkhana, but the record does not indicate on which date these were handed over to PW-6 for deposit to the FSL and the same article was sent for forensic examination – Chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was not duly proved – Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the body of the deceased, such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence – Judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court insofar they relate to the conviction and sentence of the appellant, set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 22, 23, 25] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Words and Phrases – “distinctly” as used in s.27 – Meaning. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.