S. 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Of Material Object On Disclosure Of Accused Doesn't Automatically Mean Offence Was Committed By Him: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has acquitted two murder convicts, observing that the discovery of incriminating material would not automatically conclude that the offence was committed by the accused.A division bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice N.S. Shekhawat observed, "no doubt, the recovery of a material object at the disclosure of the accused is important in view of section 27 of the Evidence Act, but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. In fact, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between the discovery of material objects and its use in commission of the offence."Speaking for the bench Justice N.S. Shekhawat said, "What is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution."In the present case, the Court noted that the knife from which the murder was statedly committed, allegedly recovered from an accused, "was not blood stained and the recovery memos were prepared only in the presence of police and no independent witness was joined by the police. Thus, the recovery of knife from the appellant No.2 was doubtful in the instant case."The Court was hearing an appeal filed by two convicts in a 2001 murder case, who were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.According to the prosecution, an unknown monk was found dead in a temple room that was locked from the outside. It was stated that during the investigation, a ration card was found, according to which the deceased belonged to a town in U.P. A police officer was sent to the address given on the ration card. There, his son confirmed that the deceased is his father who was a Pujari in a Temple in Sonipat district. He also suspected that the murder was committed by two men, namely Ranbir Singh and Joginder Singh, who used to harass his father.After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that "the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence."Referring to the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1986) the Court said, "prosecution must lead evidence relating to the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It is the basic principle that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” proved guilty before a Court can convict the accused. It has been held on numerous occasions that there is a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be proved.”It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, it added."The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused," the Court said.In the present case, the Court noted that the entire prosecution case started with the discovery of a ration card and receipt in the room of the deceased. Even the broken lock and the key, which were allegedly recovered from Ranbir Singh, (appellant No.1) were sent to the FSL and as per the FSL report, the key could operate the lock properly.It rejected the primary evidence against the accused while noting that the lock which was allegedly broken to break open the room where the dead body was found, was in working condition."However, the FSL report...clearly shows that the padlock, which was sent to the FSL, was in proper condition and it was not a broken lock. Rather the key, which was allegedly recovered from Ranbir Singh, accused/appellant No.1 could easily operate the lock properly. Still further, as per PW-16 SI Ram Avtar, the place, where the dead body was found, consisted of two rooms. Obviously, the police might have searched the room of the deceased," it said.The Court found various contradictions in the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution.It also noted that the blood could not be detected on the knife which was recovered from the appellant. Further, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that at the time of the alleged recovery of a knife from appellant No.2, no private witness was allowed to join the police team, even though the police had ample opportunity to do so."Still further, the motive attributed to the present appellants for commission of the crime is that they were not permitted by Ram Sanjivan, deceased, to stay in the room, where he was living. In fact, it is highly unbelievable that the appellants had committed the murder of Ram Sanjivan, over such a trivial issue. In fact, the prosecution tried to set up a case that both the appellants were inimical towards Ram Sanjivan...

S. 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Of Material Object On Disclosure Of Accused Doesn't Automatically Mean Offence Was Committed By Him: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags