Weapon's Recovery From A Place Unknown To Everyone Underlines Confirmation Theory U/S 27 IEA: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that recovery of an article/weapon from a place hitherto unknown to anybody else including the investigating officer, is a fact that underlines the confirmation theory which is at the heart of provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.The bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus as it affirmed the conviction of a murder accused who had murdered his pregnant step-mother along with her three kids i.e., his step-siblings.The Court also took into account the fact that the accused had himself retrieved a blood-stained axe, hidden inside the bushes in the presence of the police and a witness [PW9-Ishrar] on the next of the incident and the same was an admissible piece of evidence under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.It may be noted that the conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act [How much of information received from accused may be proved] are:(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of information received from the accused;(2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to;(3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave information and(4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible.The case in briefAs per the FIR, the informant-Abdul Rashid (father of the accused), on returning to his house, found a crowd of people at his doorstep and was told by them that his own son Shamshad, who was in an inebriated state, assaulted and inflicted wounds by a 'kulhari' on the neck of the informant's wife (Chhoti), and his 3 children. It was also mentioned in the FIR that the people of the locality saw the accused Shamshad escaping with 'kulhari' held in his hands.Before the Court, PW1-Chhotte and PW2-Sirajuddin, the residents of the same Village deposed that the victim was often harassed by his stepson (accused) and on the day of occurrence, when they went to her house they saw with their own eyes that the Accused was assaulting the deceased persons with an axe inflicting injuries. When they tried to intervene, he ran towards them in attacking mode. The witnesses tried to catch hold of him, but he escaped towards the jungle and could not be apprehended.Court's observations At the outset, the Court observed that the testimony of PW-4 (father of the accused) evoked confidence and was one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case and the same came within the scope of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.Regarding the recovery of the weapon, the Court noted that PW9-Ishrar and PW10- S.I. Sri Ram testified that the blood-stained axe was recovered (at the instance of the accused) from a spot different from the place of occurrence of the crime. "In this case before us, the evidence of PW9 and PW10 further strengthens the prosecution case in the light of the above provisions of law. In our view, the evidence led by the prosecution on this count, is not only admissible and relevant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act but also tantamounts to the evidence of the conduct of an accused which too is relevant," the Court remarked as it noted that no plausible explanation was offered by accused in his defence.With this, the Court held that the appeal lacked merits and was liable to be dismissed and was thereby dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.Case title - Shamshad v. State of U.P [JAIL APPEAL No. - 2994 of 2010]Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 422Click Here To Read/Download Order

Weapon's Recovery From A Place Unknown To Everyone Underlines Confirmation Theory U/S 27 IEA: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags