Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34, 201 – Bhartatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.103(1)/3(5) – Circumstantial evidence – Recoveries – Appellant-P along with one L, committed murder of wife of L – Appellant-P and L were convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable u/ss.302/34 and s.201 of the Penal Code, 1860 – The common appeal preferred by the accused persons against their conviction was rejected by the High Court – SLP filed by L was dismissed by this Court in limine – The appellant-P who was unable to prefer an appeal owing to poverty and lack of access to legal assistance, has now filed the present appeal through legal aid – Interference warranted or not:
Held: As emerging from the impugned judgments of the trial Court and the High Court, the case of the prosecution pertaining to the murder is based purely on circumstantial evidence viz. call detail records, recovery of blood-stained shirt and the recovery of currency notes – The law governing cases resting on circumstantial evidence is no longer res integra – Mere recovery of currency notes, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing a clear nexus between the said amount and the crime, would not by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against the appellant – The said circumstance was wrongly treated to be incriminating by the trial Court as the recovery itself is doubtful and additionally, the mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence – The second incriminating article recovered was blood-stained shirt – Even if the FSL report shows that the blood found on the shirt allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant matches that of the deceased, such finding would by itself not be incriminating in the absence of other cogent and corroborative evidence completing the chain of circumstances – The last and final piece of circumstantial evidence is call details records – In the present case, the certificate u/s.65-B of the Evidence Act [s.63 of the BSA] was not proved by the prosecution – In the absence of the certificate, mandatorily required u/s.65-B of the Evidence Act [s.63 of the BSA], the call detail records become inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to support the prosecution’s case – The prosecution has miserably failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the guilt of the appellant – Thus, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained – The impugned judgments are hereby set aside. [Paras 26, 27, 33, 52-55]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.