Court’s decision
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed under Section 302 and the conviction under the Arms Act. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court erred in affirming a conviction based solely on a disputed weapon recovery and an incomplete chain of custody. With both alleged eyewitnesses turning hostile, absence of motive, and recoveries made from a location accessible to others, the Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to acquittal. He was directed to be released forthwith unless required in another matter.
Facts
The case arose from an early morning shooting where an unidentified group allegedly arrived in a vehicle and shot a woman while she was working near her house. The FIR named two relatives of the deceased based on suspicion and mentioned three unknown assailants. Days later, the informant gave a supplementary statement naming three individuals, including the accused. The accused was arrested, and a country-made pistol with live cartridges was allegedly recovered from an unlocked iron box in his house. Two co-accused were acquitted at trial, while the appellant alone was convicted. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court based mainly on weapon recovery and an FSL report.
Issues
- Whether the conviction could stand when the primary eyewitnesses had turned hostile and offered no support to the prosecution.
- Whether the alleged recovery satisfied the standard under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, particularly when the recovered weapon was found in an open box accessible to family members.
- Whether the chain of custody was intact for relying on the FSL report.
- Whether motive, presence at the scene, or any other incriminating circumstance linked the accused to the offence.
- Whether the High Court erred in relying solely on recovery despite absence of corroborative evidence.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that conviction based only on weapon recovery was legally impermissible, especially when the eyewitnesses resiled from their statements and denied seeing the assailants. It was submitted that the recovery was from an unlocked box in a shared household and lacked independent witnesses, making it doubtful. The counsel stressed that there was no evidence the recovered pistol was the one used in the murder, and no circumstance linked the accused to the crime scene. Motive remained unproven, and the supplementary statement naming the accused was an afterthought. Reliance was placed on judgments where recoveries from accessible locations were held unreliable.
Respondent’s arguments
The State argued that the FSL report strongly supported the prosecution since the bullet fragments matched the recovered ammunition. They submitted that the recovery was made from the accused’s home and that the weapon need not be seized in presence of independent witnesses for it to be valid. The State contended that hostility of witnesses was expected due to fear or influence and should not derail the prosecution. It was argued that the recovery and ballistic report were sufficient to establish guilt and that the accused’s connection with one co-accused provided motive and context for involvement in the conspiracy.
Analysis of the law
The Court emphasized the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence: guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion cannot be the basis for conviction. The Court examined Section 27 of the Evidence Act, noting that only the portion of a disclosure statement that “distinctly relates to the fact discovered” is admissible. Recovery must be from a location uniquely linked to the accused. In this case, the iron box was open, accessible to family members, contained household items, and lacked independent witness attestation. The prosecution could not prove that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the murder or was handled exclusively by the accused.
Precedent analysis
Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P.
The Court relied on this case to hold that recovery from a location accessible to others, without independent witnesses, cannot safely anchor a conviction.
Manjunath v. State of Karnataka
This case clarified that recoveries from public places or shared spaces are weak evidence, especially when the objects recovered are commonplace. The Court applied this principle directly.
Nikhil Chandra Mondal
Here, recovery of a weapon from an open place was held insufficient to connect an accused to the offence. The Supreme Court used this precedent to reject the prosecution’s reliance on recovery alone.
Jeet Singh, Bharat Fakira Dhiwar & Lochan Srivas (distinguished)
These cases involved recoveries closely linked to the offence or made from exclusive locations. The Court held they were inapplicable because the present facts did not establish similar exclusivity.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the prosecution’s entire case collapsed when the two principal witnesses turned hostile, denying the presence of the accused and disowning the FIR contents. No independent witness testified to seeing the accused near the scene. The alleged motive was weak and speculative, especially since those with stronger motive were either not chargesheeted or were acquitted. The recovery was legally insufficient: it was from an unlocked box accessible to others, lacked independent corroboration, and the chain of custody for sending the pistol to the FSL was incomplete. The FSL report alone could not establish guilt without proving that the recovered pistol was the murder weapon.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to prove identity, motive, presence, or any circumstance forming an unbroken chain pointing to guilt. Weapon recovery did not “distinctly relate” to the offence, the chain of custody was broken, and eyewitness testimony collapsed. As criminal jurisprudence demands complete proof, the Court acquitted the accused and ordered his release. The judgment underscores that courts must guard against wrongful convictions based on weak circumstantial evidence.
Implications
This judgment reiterates that recovery alone cannot form the basis of conviction without corroboration. It reinforces the importance of complete chain of custody, independent witnesses during recovery, and strict compliance with Section 27. It protects the principle that benefit of doubt must go to the accused when primary witnesses turn hostile and motive is unproven. It also clarifies that in circumstantial evidence cases, every link must be firmly established. The ruling will significantly impact future trials involving disputed recoveries and hostile witnesses.
FAQs
1. Can recovery alone justify conviction in a murder case?
No. Recovery must be exclusive, corroborated, and clearly linked to the offence. Without that, conviction cannot stand.
2. What happens when eyewitnesses turn hostile?
The prosecution must rely on independent evidence. If none exists, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
3. Does an FSL match guarantee conviction?
No. The prosecution must prove that the recovered weapon was the one used in the offence and that the recovery is reliable.
