Accused's Act Of Absconding Alone Doesn't Establish His Guilt: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Conviction In 25 Year Old Murder Case

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty, and that too, for a serious offence like murder.

“Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of an accused is also one of the circumstances which the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect. What we are trying to convey is that the conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Act, cannot form the basis of conviction,” the Court remarked.

The division bench made these observations while allowing a criminal appeal moved by one Rajveer Singh challenging the September 2005 judgment and order passed by the Additional Session Judge Agra convicting him under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The appellant was accused of killing his brother, Nem Singh, on August 4, 1999. The appellant was the scribe of the FIR, and he was also a witness to the inquest and participated in the last rites of the deceased.

However, subsequently, based on suspicion, he was made an accused, stating that he used to quarrel with his brother over the partition of property and for not sharing the sale proceeds of the plot, which was in the name of his mother

On August 16, 1999, the appellant was arrested, and his statement was recorded, and on his pointing out, an axe (alleged murder weapon) was recovered from an open place. Thereafter, the blood-stained Pyjama and the Shirt of the appellant were also recovered on the pointing out of the appellant from his room and kept in a box.

Noting that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness account of the incident, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the appellant.

The trial court relied upon the recovery of the crime weapon axe, under section 27 of the Evidence Act, coupled with the conduct of the accused in recovering his Pyjama and shirt, which he was allegedly wearing at the time of the incident, from his house, kept in a box and held that the chain of circumstances stood complete.

Challenging his conviction, he moved the High Court contending that the alleged recovery of the axe and clothes of the accused from his house kept in a box have not been proved as required under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as well and cannot be said to be relevant under sec. 8 of the Evidence Act, as held by the trial court.

On the other hand, to justify the trial court's judgment, the AGA, inter alia, argued that in the instant case, the appellant absconded from the scene of the incident, which is indicative of his involvement in the instant case and points towards the accused's guilt.

It was also contended that the manner in which recovery of blood stained Pyjama and blood-stained shirt is said to have been made at the instance of the accused from his house kept in a box; the same could be a relevant circumstance under section 8 of the Evidence Act.

Analysing the evidence produced by the prosecution and the record of the case, the Court noted that it was a case of circumstantial evidence, wherein motive plays a pivotal role. In the instant case, the motive had not been cogently and convincingly proved, which created a serious dent in the prosecution story.

The Court added that the evidence clearly showed that an attempt had been made to falsely implicate the accused in the instant case, only based on suspicion.

Regarding the recovery of the blood-stained Axe and blood-stained clothes, the Court noted that it is evident from the evidence adduced that the Axe has been recovered by the police itself from the chappar of the appellant and not at his pointing out.

Noting the procedures laid down by the Top Apex Court for proving the disclosure statement, the Court found that the conversation between the Investigating Officer and the accused was not described at all in the disclosure statements.

Thus, the Court said that such disclosure statements could not be read in evidence, and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are non-est in the eyes of the law.

Further, the Court noted that even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct would be relevant under section 8 of the Act and that the evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under section 27.

However, the Court added that the accused's conduct alone, though it may be relevant under Section 8 of the Act, cannot form the basis of conviction.

The Court also stressed that the recoveries said to be made at the appellant's pointing out had not been put to the accused in his statement under section 313 CrPC.

The court said this fact seriously damaged the prosecution's story and made the appellant liable for acquittal.

Against this backdrop, the Court found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant.

“Even from the entire evidence it can not be said that in all human probability act must have been done by the accused particularly when there were two other male members in the family present in the house at the time of incident and the instant case, being the case of a blind murder,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted.

Case title - Rajveer Singh vs. State of U.P 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 402

Click Here To Read/Download Order