Probative Value Of Fingerprint Evidence Gets Eroded If Collected At Police Station Instead Of Place Of Recovery: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian acquitted a murder convict, who was found guilty by the Sessions Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone.

The prosecution allegation was that the accused, who was on inimical terms with the deceased, trespassed into the courtyard of the deceased's house, assaulted him with a shock absorber, and caused his death.

The prosecution version was that the weapon, i.e., the shock absorber was recovered based on the confession statement of the accused and this was relied on as a material circumstance to implicate him.

After the prosecution evidence was closed, the trial court examined the accused under Section 313 CrPC and he denied all the incriminating circumstances. He also filed a statement wherein he said that he and the deceased had a cordial relationship, and that he was falsely implicated.

He also stated that the deceased consumed alcohol and entered into quarrel during a temple festival. Thereafter, someone followed the deceased and murdered him. He further stated that he had no connection with the recovery of the shock absorber and it was placed in his hand by the police while in custody.

The appellant came before the High Court challenging the judgment in which he was awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence of Section 302 IPC.

The Court first examined the evidence rendered by the doctor who conducted the post mortem and came to the conclusion that the death was culpable homicide amounting to murder.

Next, it examined the evidence rendered by other witnesses, including PW9, who had signed the recovery mahazar, and PW13, who deposed that the shock absorber was recovered from her house.

PW9 had turned hostile during trial when he deposed that he signed the mahazar at the police station and not at the site of alleged recovery. He also identified the shock absorber in court as the object that was shown to him for the first time in the police station.

Considering these factors, the Court remarked that PW13's evidence regarding recovery of the shock absorber does not inspire confidence, especially since she had not signed the mahazar.

“No explanation has been offered by the prosecution as to why no attempt was made by the investigating officer to ensure the collection of chance prints from the place of recovery itself. Viewed in this background, we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW9 that he affixed his signature on the seizure mahazar relating to the recovery of MO1 shock absorber at the police station. This circumstance assumes significance because if important aspects, including the collection of fingerprints, were in fact carried out at the police station, the probative value of the evidence gets eroded,” the Court added.

Five other witnesses, some of whom were related to the accused, had also turned hostile to the prosecution case.

Court remarked that hostility of independent witnesses to a recovery mahazar is not always fatal to the prosecution case when investigating officer's evidence regarding recovery is convincing and reliable. However, since in the present case the recovery was not proved and the chain of circumstances was incomplete, the Court was of the opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt since.

Thus, it allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.

Case No: Crl.A. No.1737 of 2025

Case Title: Ratheesh v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 211

Counsel for the appellant: S. Shanavas Khan, S. Indu, Govind H. Nair

Counsel for the respondent: T.R. Renjith – Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment