Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely On Recovered Weapon; There Must Be Corroborative Evidence: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court observed that the conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon and there must be some corroborative evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
The Court said that the single circumstance of recovery by no means can be a ground to convict the accused. The other circumstance, except the recovery, should also be looked into and there must be some chain and corroboration to convict.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the Judgment whereby the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench comprising Justice Ananda Sen and Justice Subhash Chand observed, “…conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon. There must be some corroborative evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Brief Facts-
The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the deceased's wife, stating that her husband, Mukesh Kujur, was assaulted by her brother-in-law, Sanjay Kujur, with an axe in their courtyard. Mukesh was found seriously injured and unconscious, drenched in blood. She rushed him to the hospital. The FIR was initially charged under Sections 326/307 of the IPC but was later amended to include Section 302. After investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 302, and the case was subsequently transferred to the Sessions Court for trial which convicted the accused.
The Court observed, “Confessional statement leading to the recovery of weapon, stand alone, cannot be a ground of conviction. There must be other credible corroborative evidence.”
The Court said that even if the murder weapon is recovered and it is blood stained also, that does not prove the guilt of the accused. According to the Court, a single circumstance by no means can be a ground to convict the appellant.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court in the case of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481 and quoted, “Thus, we find that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court said that Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which postulates that the burden of proving things that are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual is not applicable here as the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rajinder Singh versus State of Haryana reported in (2013) 15 SCC 245 and quoted, “Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the burden of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but where the prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts and the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts fail to offer any explanation then the court can draw a different inference.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of conviction.
Finally, the Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sanjay Kujur v. State of Jharkhand
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Zaid Ahmed
Respondent: APP Anup Pawan Topno
