26 Jan 2024 5:56 AM GMT
While deciding the issue whether suspicious sole recovery of blood-stained weapon could form the basis of conviction, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 24) held in negative by holding that sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused.
Setting-aside the concurring findings of the High Court and the Trial Court, the Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that an accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion unless some corroborated piece of evidence is found proving the guilt of the accused.
“It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Briefly put, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused committed an offence of murder in 2009 by giving blows with a dagger to the deceased, and then wrapped the body in a blanket with the help of other accused persons. Certain recoveries were made at the instance of the accused suggesting a presence of human blood on the dagger which was recovered at the instance of the accused. However, the prosecution couldn't have succeeded in proving beyond the reasonable ground that the blood stains on the dagger were of the accused.
The trial court convicted the accused on the pretext that the pieces of blanket recovered from the place of incident and the place where the dead body was subsequently taken for being burnt, were found to be identical/similar to that of the accused. The High Court while affirming the conviction of the accused noted that the accused had failed to give an explanation when questions were put under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the recovery of various articles at his instance and also regarding the FSL report.
The accused has challenged the conviction on the grounds of considering the sole circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that no conviction can survive on the pretext of suspicious recoveries made by the police i.e., the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable ground.
After perusing the material evidence placed on record, the court discarded the shreds of evidence produced by the prosecution, especially the FSL report.
“As per the FSL report, the blood stains found on the dagger were of human blood. However, the FSL report does not show that the blood found on the dagger was of the blood group of the deceased.”
“However, as already stated hereinabove, the said recovery is also from an open place accessible to one and all. In any case, the blood found on the dagger does not match with the blood group of the deceased.”, the court observed.
The court held that sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused.
“Thus, we find that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.”
According to court, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
“As already discussed hereinabove, merely on the basis of suspicion, conviction would not be tenable. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is only the accused and the accused alone who has committed the crime. We find that the prosecution has utterly failed to do so.”
Accused Failing to give any explanation under Section 313 Cr. P.C. couldn't lead to a conviction
The high court has also up hold the conviction of the accused on the ground that when the questions were put to the accused, he wasn't able to provide any explanation to the questions. Disagreeing with the view adopted by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the non-explanation or false explanation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances.
“..we find that the High Court has failed to appreciate the basic principle that it is only after the prosecution discharges its duty of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the false explanation or non-explanation of the accused could be taken into consideration…It can only be used to fortify the conclusion of guilt already arrived at on the basis of other proven circumstances.”
Accordingly, while allowing the appeal, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of is quashed and set aside.
Case Details:
RAJA NAYKAR VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 60