NCLAT: Consideration of Debt Restructuring by Lenders Doesn’t Bar Member from Initiating Proceedings  ||  Delhi High Court: In Matters of Medical Evaluation, Courts Should Exercise Restraint  ||  Delhi HC: Any Person in India Has Right to Legally Import Goods from Abroad and Sell the Same  ||  Delhi HC: Waiver to Section 12(5) of Arbitration Act to be Given Once Tribunal is Constituted  ||  Supreme Court Has Asked States to Regularise Existing Court Managers  ||  SC: Union & States to Create Special POSCO Courts on Top Priority  ||  SC Upholds Authority of CERC to Award Compensation for Delays  ||  SC: Arbitral Tribunal Has Discretion to Include in Sum Awarded, Interest at Rate as it Deems Reasonab  ||  SC: Cannot Use Article 142 to Frame Guidelines on Judicial Recusal  ||  SC: Satisfaction Recorder in One EP Won’t Affect Subsequent EPs for Future Breaches    

Anil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra - (High Court of Bombay) (25 Apr 2018)

Circumstances must be proved which unerringly points out finger towards the accused and none else

MANU/MH/0782/2018

Criminal

Appellants assailed the judgment by which Appellants are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 120-B, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 each. Learned counsel has pointed out evidence on record and submitted that, there was no any eye witness of the incident. The case of the prosecution only based on circumstantial evidence i.e. only recovery of weapon from the accused. Learned trial Court wrongly recorded its finding holding that in the confessional statement, accused admitted their guilt.

There was no any eye witness of the incident. The prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence. It is well settled law that circumstances must be proved which unerringly points out finger towards the accused and none else. In the present case, none of the panch witnesses supported to the case of prosecution.

Trial Court wrongly relied on the memorandum statements of accused persons for the discovery of weapon. Learned trial Court has observed that, accused persons were arrested and their memorandum of admission of offence were recorded. They have admitted the guilt. Learned trial Court wrongly relied on Chemical Analyser Reports. As per the Chemical Analyser Reports, blood stains on clothes were of Group 'B'. Blood group of deceased was not determined. Learned trial Court wrongly held that Blood Group 'B' must be of deceased. Without any evidence, learned trial Court wrongly recorded its finding that Blood Group 'B' was of deceased. It is pertinent to note that, seizure panchanama of articles not duly proved. None of the panch witnesses supported to the case of prosecution.

Prosecution has failed to prove any of the circumstances against the Appellants. Statements/confessions of accused to discover the weapon is not wholly admissible. The only part of discovery is admissible. As per Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, admission of guilt before the Police Officer is not admissible. Only exception is Section 27. As per Section 27, only statement of accused in respect of discovery is admissible. Other incriminating part in the confessional statements cannot be taken into consideration. Learned trial Court without considering the law under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 wrongly held that, Appellants admitted their guilt. Chemical Analyser Report is not substantive piece of evidence. Moreover, blood group of deceased was not determined. None of the panch witnesses proved the seizure of weapon. Learned trial Court wrongly relied on the evidence of Investigating Officer and wrongly convicted the appellants. Hence, Appellants are entitled for acquittal. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.

Tags : CONVICTION   VALIDITY   CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved