Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Adina (A1) and Ankush (A2), were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, for the murder of Subhash Rathod under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a blood-stained iron rod and pestle, and blood-stained clothes of the accused. The trial court also invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, noting that the murder occurred in the house of the deceased where the accused resided, and they failed to explain the circumstances. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The court noted that the prosecution did not establish foundational facts to invoke Section 106, and the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were not legally admissible as there was no proper disclosure from the accused. The court held that the trial court's reliance on the accused's failure to explain under Section 313 CrPC was misplaced. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted both accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires complete chain of circumstances excluding hypothesis of innocence - In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, and the trial court erroneously relied on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act without first establishing foundational facts - Held that the conviction is unsustainable (Paras 12-20). B) Evidence Act - Section 106 - Burden of Proof - Section 106 Indian Evidence Act - Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove foundational facts - In a case of custodial death, the accused's failure to explain under Section 313 CrPC cannot be the sole basis for conviction - Held that the trial court erred in shifting the burden to the accused without prosecution establishing basic facts (Paras 12-20). C) Evidence Act - Section 27 - Disclosure Statement - Section 27 Indian Evidence Act - For a memorandum and consequential seizure to be admissible, there must be a disclosure from the accused leading to discovery of a fact - In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused made any disclosure, rendering the seizures inadmissible - Held that the recoveries cannot be used to connect the accused with the crime (Paras 12-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case No.187/2019 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused no.1 Adina, who is on bail, is discharged from her bail bonds. Accused no.2 Ankush, who is in jail, shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- Section 106 Indian Evidence Act
- Section 27 Indian Evidence Act
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Section 374(2) CrPC
- Section 313 CrPC
