Conviction Cannot Be Based Solely On Recovery Of Murder Weapon; Corroborative Evidence Needed To Establish Guilt: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a man convicted of murder, ruling that a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of the murder weapon. The Court emphasised the necessity of corroborative evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand observed, “In our opinion a 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. Confessional statement leading to recovery of weapon, stand alone, cannot be a ground of conviction. There must be other credible corroborative evidence.”

“Even if the murder weapon is recovered and it is blood stained also, that does not prove the guilt of the accused. This single circumstance by no means can be a ground to convict the appellant. The other circumstance, except the recovery should also be looked into and there must be some chain and corroboration to convict the appellant. In this case there are no other corroborative material, rather no evidence at all,” the bench added.

An FIR was lodged by the deceased's wife, stating that she had gone to the field for work when her sister-in-law informed her that her husband had been assaulted by his brother with an axe. As a result of the assault, her husband was found lying unconscious in the courtyard. She immediately rushed home, and the injured husband was taken to the hospital.

Initially, the First Information Report was registered under Sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The session judge subsequently convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by this conviction, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

The Appellant argued that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. Additionally, it was contended that the mere recovery of a weapon, even if identified as the murder weapon through the appellant's confession, is insufficient for a conviction without corroborating evidence, which is lacking in this case.

The State, on the other hand, countered by asserting that the informant was an eyewitness to the incident, and that the appellant can be convicted based solely on the eyewitness's testimony. Furthermore, the State submitted that the murder weapon was recovered based on the accused's confession.

Upon reviewing the entire evidence, the Court observed that all the other witnesses, except P.W.3—who posed as an eyewitness—were hearsay witnesses. The Court further highlighted a significant contradiction between the informant's statement in her Fardbeyan and her testimony before the Court.

The Court asserted, “From her statement in the Fardbeyan it is clear that she is not an eyewitness, whereas in her deposition before the Court as P.W.3, she becomes an eye witness. ... Since we hold that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence, the fact remains that there are no other eye witness to the entire occurrence.”

“Thereafter, the only circumstance, which remains is recovery of murder weapon on confessional statement on pointing out by the appellant,” the Court continued.

The Court placed reliance on the Apex Court's judgement in Satye Singh versus State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 438, which held that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence. However, such evidence must be tested against the legal standard that all circumstances must conclusively indicate that the accused is the only one who committed the crime and no one else.

“Thus, in view of what has been held hereinbefore, we are inclined to allow this appeal and acquit the appellant. The impugned Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 24th July, 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2019 are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges against him. He is directed to be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case,” the Court said while allowing the appeal.

Case Title: Sanjay Kujur V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 89

Click Here To Download Judgement