Recovery Of Weapon At Instance Of Accused Cannot Be Accepted As Reliable Evidence: SC Extends Benefit Of Doubt And Acquits Man Convicted Of Murder
|The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of murder holding that recovery of a weapon at the instance of an accused cannot be accepted as reliable evidence.
The appellant was convicted and ordered to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant was informed that his brother, the deceased, was shot dead. The body of the deceased was later found by the police.
The prosecution relied on the evidence from alleged eyewitnesses and on the recovery of the weapon at the appellant's instance, as there was no independent witness to the recovery. The prosecution claimed that the ballistic expert's report showed that the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased matched the country-made pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant.
Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, observed, “It cannot be said that there was a discovery by the appellant of the place where dead bodies were kept. Therefore, that part of the statement of the accused, which records that he would show the place where he had thrown the dead bodies, is not admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
AOR Satyendra Kumar represented the appellant, while AAG S. Udaya Kumar Sagar appeared for the respondent.
The Court remarked that the eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution, leaving the alleged recovery as the only evidence available which was made one month and four days after the incident. This raised doubts and suspicion about the prosecution’s theory regarding recovery as per the Court.
The Court further stated that the recovery was made from an open space in a garden and was easily accessible to anyone. The appellant's statement leading to the alleged recovery was also questioned by the Court.
The Court noted that “the evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant cannot be accepted as reliable. Moreover, the findings we have recorded above create a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case.”
The Court extended the appellant benefit of the doubt on account that “once the evidence of recovery is disbelieved, it was a case of no evidence as the eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution.”
The Court held that the appellant's statement which recorded where the dead bodies were found was not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as there was no actual discovery by the appellant.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Krishan v. State of Haryana (2024 INSC 60)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Satyendra Kumar
Respondent: AAG S. Udaya Kumar Sagar and AOR Monika Gusain