Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reversal of an acquittal in a murder case and acquitted the three appellants. The only independent eyewitness could not identify the assailants and no identification parade was held; the father and another witness were chance witnesses whose presence was doubtful; and the recoveries of weapons, unsupported by any forensic link to the deceased, could not prove identity because the accused's statements that these were the weapons of crime were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
Issues
- Whether the evidence established that the appellants were the persons who chased and killed the deceased.
- What evidentiary value attaches to chance witnesses whose presence at the scene is doubtful.
- How much of a disclosure statement leading to recovery of weapons is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
Provisions considered
- Sections 25 and 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Confessions to a police officer or while in police custody cannot be proved against the accused; the appellants' statements that the recovered weapons were the weapons of crime could not be read against them. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Treated as an exception to Sections 25 and 26: only so much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact discovered (the place of concealment and recovery) is admissible, not the assertion that the weapons were used in the crime. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellants, convicted by the High Court under Section 302 on reversal of acquittal, were acquitted because their identity as the assailants was not established. (¶¶ 2, 9, 34, 36)
Held
- Motive arising from a quarrel the same morning is not enough to implicate the accused unless their involvement is established by cogent evidence. (¶ 13)
- The independent eyewitness in whose house the deceased was attacked saw three persons assault him but did not know them; no identification parade was held and she was never asked to identify the appellants, so her evidence did not establish their identity. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 25)
- The father of the deceased arrived, on the independent witness's account, about half an hour after the assault, his route past the spot was unnatural, his blood-stained clothes were never seized and the mill owner did not support his account; he was a chance witness who could not be relied on to identify the assailants, and the witness who followed him stood on no better footing. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident is doubtful should be discarded or treated with great caution, and such a witness must adequately explain his presence. (¶ 26)
- Under Section 27 only that part of a custodial statement which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible; information leading to recovery of weapons is admissible, but not the statement that the crime was committed with them. With no forensic report linking the recovered weapons to the deceased's blood, the recoveries did not connect the appellants with the crime. (¶¶ 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- An order of acquittal should not be interfered with in appeal unless the Trial Court's findings are perverse or erroneous; the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without finding perversity. (¶¶ 35, 36)
Result
Appeals allowed; conviction set aside and the appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt; their bail bonds discharged.