Weapon's Discovery On Disclosure Statement Of Accused Alone Not Enough To Prove Guilt: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Murder-Convict's Life Sentence

The Allahabad High Court has observed the discovery of the material object/crime weapon at the disclosure of the accused is important for the purposes of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence.

Holding thus, the High Court, on Thursday SET ASIDE the life sentence of a murder-convict in a case that dates back to the year 2014, after concluding that merely on the strength of the recovery of the crime weapon on the pointing out of the appellant-accused CAN'T form the basis of his conviction.

"In fact (after the discovery) the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution," the Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Dinesh Pathak concluded.

The case in brief 

As per the prosecution case, the appellant/complainant lodged F.I.R. under section 302 I.P.C. on April 30, 2014, at 10.05 a.m. against the unknown person(s) in connection with the murder of his wife.

He stated that as per usual routine, the family members, including his wife/deceased alongwith the infant child, after taking dinner, retired to sleep in the night and he himself, went to sleep at the DHABA behind the house.

He further said that in the morning, his son Kamlesh saw his mother (deceased) lying dead on the cot; there was blood all over and he ran and informed the complainant about the incident.

On interrogation, the appellant/complainant confessed to having committed the offence at about 3.00 a.m. in the morning by Kulhari (axe) slaughtering the neck of his wife.

The accused/complainant informed the Investigating Officer (I.O.) that he had hidden the axe nearby after the incident, accordingly, the accused/appellant was taken into custody and the axe was recovered at his instance.

The forensic lab report noted that human blood was found on axe (kulhari), Kathari (thick Blanket), cord of cot, blouse, and broken piece of glass bangles.

The trial court, on considering the statement of the witnesses of fact, the documentary evidence and the recovery of the crime weapon at the pointing out of the appellant from his house, the presence of human blood on the axe and the clothes and other accessories of the deceased, was of the opinion that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced to life, challenging the same, the accused-appellant moved to the Court.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court ventured to find out whether the prosecution had been able to prove the case and whether it had been able to link the accused to the offence.

In view of this, the Court noted that as per the cite plan of the crime scene, the room of the deceased was accessible to any person being adjacent to the road and surrounded by open land and the door opens to the surrounding open land.

The Court also noted that the accused would have to cover the distance from outside the house i.e. through the open land to reach the room of the deceased as the room where the accused was sleeping and the room where the deceased was sleeping was NOT interconnected through the thatched house.

Against this backdrop, the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to establish the missing link i.e. connecting the presence of the appellant at the time of commission of the offence and that it had failed to prove that the accused alone had accessed the room of the deceased.

"As per prosecution case several persons were present in the house along with the appellant. The appellant came to be convicted on his confessional statement and the recovery of the assault weapon on his pointing out. The confessional statement will not be read against the appellant and the conviction would not rest on the recovery of the assault weapon alone in the backdrop of the statement of the witnesses and the cite plan showing that the room of the deceased was accessible to one and all, including, strangers," the Court further held.

Now, with regard to the discovery of the axe/alleged murder weapon at the instance of the accused, the Court said that this fact alone can't form the basis of the Conviction as it remarked thus:

"With regard to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution."

The Court also noted that the recovery of the crime weapon in the facts of the case in hand was made after five days, though the accused was the complainant and was present throughout the investigation, the crime weapon had not been linked with the commission of the offence.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the finding reached by the trial court was perse perverse and thus, it allowed the jail appeal and the impugned judgment and order of the conviction and sentence was set aside. The appellant Chatthoo Chero was directed to be released forthwith.

Case title - Chatthoo Chero v. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 116 of 2019]

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 166

Click Here To Read/Download Order