Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8 and 27 – Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct – How much of information received from accused may be proved – Chain of circumstances to establish hypothesis of guilt – Absence of corroborative evidence – On facts, conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 34 and 120B IPC and s.25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, for committing murder of the victim, by the courts below – Conviction on the basis of the recovery of a pistol from him and the ballistic report which confirmed that the bullet recovered from the body of the victim, was fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant, however, no eyewitnesses to the crime, implicating the appellant – Correctness:
Held: Ballistic report connecting the pistol recovered from the appellant with the bullet recovered from the body of the victim, is an inculpatory fact – Prosecution case that the said discovery and recovery of the pistol is attributable to the disclosure statement provided by the co-accused (since deceased), are governed by ss.8 and 27 – As the disclosure statement led to the arrest of the appellant, the prosecution may take the benefit of s.8 – However, absence of any corroborative evidence directly linking the appellant to the crime introduces a significant gap in facts as alleged in the chain of circumstances, which fails to establish a hypothesis of guilt that conclusively excludes all other reasonable possibilities – To establish that the appellant participated in the murder, the prosecution must present further material and evidence linking the appellant to the actual crime – Appellant may be guilty of an offence u/s.201 IPC, the evidence provided by the prosecution insufficient to secure a conviction for the murder of the victim – Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant guilty of murder, either individually or with shared common intention or in conspiracy with the co-accused – Thus, the conviction of the appellant set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 and 120B – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25(1-B)(A). [Paras 11, 13, 15, 16] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – How much of information received from accused may be proved – Conditions to be satisfied u/s.27 – Stated. [Para 12]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Principles to be satisfied to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused: Held: Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, a finding of guilt is justified only if all the incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the accused’s innocence – There must be a chain of evidence so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but the one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must show that the act has been done by the accused within all human probability. [Para 9]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain [1999] Supp. 5 SCR 215 : (2000) 1 SCC 471. 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.