Facts Revealed By Accused In Custody About Discovery, Not Acceptance Of Guilt, Can Be Treated As Legal Evidence U/S 27 Evidence Act: Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court recently acquitted a man convicted for charges of murder under section 302 IPC, while observing that there wasn't sufficient evidence on record to prove his guilt and that mere statement of the co accused isn't enough to convict him. The bench of Justice Amarnath Goud and Justice Arindam Lodh also reiterated that only that much of the statement made by an accused in custody during investigation to the police is admissible as leads to the recovery of some articles or things. Any other part of the statement which is not related with the recovery of articles is not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It observed,"Except the fact which is revealed by the accused in the custody about the discovery, no other fact relating to acceptance of guilt, close to confession, cannot be treated as the legal evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act."In the instant case, on the confession of the co-accused, the investigating officer had recovered the articles and accordingly seized but, no such statement of the appellant, who was in custody during recovery of the articles was found in the instant case. In this backdrop, the Court observed that the trial court could not convict the appellant basing on the confession of the co-accused, rather the trial court ought to have find out and ascertain as to what evidence has been adduced by the prosecution against the appellant and if the confession of the co-accused is found to be sufficient then such confessional statement could have been used for the purpose of convicting the appellant. "In the present case, we noticed that the only evidence which the prosecution adduced against the appellant was the fact that the co-accused accompanied the appellant and also had led the police to recover one six pocket holder three quarter pant and one shirt from his Page 14 house which were seized by making seizure list. Even, we do not find any definite link between the statements of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 so as to reach to a finding that the appellant is guilt of the alleged offence. Moreover, there is no eye witness to the alleged incident except mere extra-judicial confessional statement of the appellant."The appeal arose out of the judgment and order of conviction passed by Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for life with default stipulation. The complaint against the appellant was registered under Section 302/34 IPC. The matter was investigated by the investigating officer and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the convict appellant and others under Sections 120(B)/420/302/201 IPC. After hearing arguments and on examining the evidences and materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the convict-appellant from the charges framed against him under Sections 120(B)/420/201 IPC, but, convicted and sentenced him for committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Hence, this appeal before this court. After carefully perusing through all evidences on record the court was of view that there was no evidence to link the appellant the with the alleged murder. "Taking into account the blood stain found on the wearing apparels of the appellant, the appellant was taken into custody by the police that too after about 6 days from the date of occurrence. It is also evident from the record that the report of the forensic experts does not support the prosecution case as the blood stain of the deceased was not compared with the blood stain found on the wearing apparels of the appellant. Moreover, the learned trial court did not find any material against the appellant for any criminal conspiracy and had acquitted the appellant from the charge under section 120B IPC," the Court said. In view of the above laid law Court opined that that the evidence on record was grossly inadequate to convict the appellant and he ought to have, therefore, been acquitted of the charges framed against him. Accordingly the court allowed the appellant's appeal. Case Title: Sri Sumanjoy Tripura v. The State of TripuraCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Trip) 19 Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Facts Revealed By Accused In Custody About Discovery, Not Acceptance Of Guilt, Can Be Treated As Legal Evidence U/S 27 Evidence Act: Tripura High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags