Brief Facts
- On 21st October, 2009, the half-burnt body of Shiva alias Sanwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was found behind Baba Balak Nath temple near Shastri Nagar ground. Based on the information given by one Pramod Kumar (P.W.3), merg intimation Ex. P-33 was registered against unknown persons.
- It was alleged that Appellant and Accused No. 2 (Sister-in-law) caused the murder of deceased so as to take revenge for the death of Mohan, brother of Appellant as the Appellant believed that deceased had caused the death of his brother.
- The case is premised upon the circumstantial evidences and the Trial Court found the Appellant guilty of crime on the basis of the recovery of various articles at his instance. They have further found that the pieces of blanket recovered from the place of incident and the place where the dead body was subsequently taken for being burnt, were found to be identical/similar.
- The Appellant was convicted for offence under section 302 and 201 of the IPC. Even the High Court dismissed the appeal resulting in the filing of present appeal.
Issues
- Whether the statement of accused under section 27 of Evidence Act regarding the place where the dead body has been kept would be relevant if the dead body was recovered prior to the recording of the disclosure statement?
- Whether the recovery of blood-stained weapon from the open place can be considered as credible evidence, specially when the FSL report does not provide for the blood group of the blood found on the weapon?
- Whether the recovery of blood-stained weapon can be the sole basis to record the conviction of the accused?
Observations by the Court
- Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the Appellant after pointing of various discrepancies in the story of the prosecution, some of which are as under:
- Court relied on the case of Pulukuri Kotayya and others v. King-Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 to conclude that only such statement (disclosure under section 27) which leads to recovery of incriminating material from a place solely and exclusively within the knowledge of the maker thereof would be admissible in evidence. Since the dead body was recovered much prior to the statement such disclosure cannot be relied.
- Dragger (murder weapon) was recovered after four days from the date of incident and Property Seizure Memo would show that the dagger was seized from a place accessible to one and all. FSL report just show the presence of human blood but does not show that the blood found on the dagger was of the blood group of the deceased. Apart from that, even the serological report is not available.
- Blood-stained cloths were recovered from the house of Appellant’s sister-in-law after four days of incident and it is highly unlikely that a person committing the crime would keep the clothes in the house of his sister-in-law for four days.
Recovery of weapon may not be sole basis of conviction
- It can thus be seen that, the only circumstance that may be of some assistance to the Prosecution’s case is the recovery of dagger at the instance of the present Appellant. However, as already stated hereinabove, the said recovery is also from an open place accessible to one and all. In any case, the blood found on the dagger does not match with the blood group of the deceased. In the case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2011 SC 2769 this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused. Thus, we find that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon, it cannot be said that the Prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Relevant Paragraph
- 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21