Mere Recovery Of Weapon Can’t Be Basis Of Conviction When There’s No Established Motive For Commission Of Offence: Chhattisgarh HC In 2017 Murder Case
|The Chhattisgarh High Court while acquitting four men in 2017 murder case, observed that mere recovery of weapon cannot be a basis of conviction when there is no established motive for commission of offence.
The accused persons had preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge by which the Trial Court convicted and sentenced them.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held, “Mere recovery of weapon from the appellants cannot become the basis of conviction when there is no established motive for commission of offence. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go the accused. Further, the Court stated that it is a well settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution had utterly failed to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.”
Advocates Aditi Singhvi and Hariom Rai appeared for the appellants/accused while Additional Advocate General (AAG) R.S. Marhas appeared for the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
As per the prosecution case, the complainant was a businessman dealing with properties. In 2017, he met Bablu alias Irfan with whom he had business relations and thereafter, he came home with him and took him along with his son to his father’s house in a car to wish his sister a happy birthday. While returning from there, he was sitting on driving seat and Bablu was sitting on the seat next to him with his son on his lap. After that, as soon as the complainant started moving his car, two people came from the front on a bike and parked the same in front of his car. They stopped the car by giving a signal and at the same time, two persons came from behind on motor-cycle and stood on the side seat of the car.
Bablu said Hey Asif! where then that person took out his pistol from his waist and fired a shot at Bablu’s head, due to which he got injured and started bleeding. Seeing the situation, the complainant got extremely scared and immediately took his car to his father's house and informed his brother about the incident and then they took Bablu to the hospital. However, on the way itself, Bablu died. It was stated that Bablu and Asif had an old rivalry. Hence, an FIR was registered against Asif and 3 others for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court convicted and sentenced them against which the appeal was filed by them before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “A perusal of the statement of Rajeev Bhosle (PW-1) would show that he has failed to identify the appellants in Court though he has identified the appellants correctly in Test Identification Parade before Naid Tehsildar. No witness of identification can be deemed reliable unless he is found to consistently identify an accused in TIP as well as in Court. It is a settled position of law that the evidence of a TIP is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial.”
The Court said that Test Identification Parades (TIPs), even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained and any false or wrong identification made on part of the witness becomes a gateway to the wrongful conviction of an innocent for the crime which that person to all intents and purposes didn’t commit.
“The version of Rajeev Bhosle (PW-1) cannot be relied upon as has stated in his deposition that the appellants were masked and the incident took place at night and therefore incorrect identification of appellants by PW-1 in the Court questions the veracity of the witness and conviction cannot be based on such identification. The appellants have taken a specific defence that the deceased and Rajeev Bhosle (PW-1) were involved in monetary disputes in business and Rajeev Bhosle (PW-1) and his brothers were in jail for various offences”, it further noted.
The Court emphasised that the evidence of sole witness needs to be considered with caution and after testing it against other material. It added that such evidence must inspire confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion.
“… in view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellants.
Cause Title- Mohd. Yasin & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 CGHC:31291-DB)