The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 28) restored the acquittal of six men in a 1988 murder case, observing that recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 23 BSA) cannot, by itself, form the basis of a conviction unless the recovered material is clearly connected with the offence through independent evidence.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the prosecution had relied on the recovery of a weapon at the instance of Accused No. 4 and the seizure of clothes belonging to Accused No. 2. Although forensic examination detected human blood on these articles, the prosecution failed to establish that the blood was that of the deceased or otherwise connect the recovered articles with the murder.

The case related to the murder of one Qavi on February 14, 1988. The deceased's brother had challenged the acquittal before the Bombay High Court through a criminal revision petition. After an earlier remand by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, the High Court had again directed the trial court to reconsider the evidence of eyewitnesses, recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the chemical analysis report, while upholding the trial court's rejection of the alleged dying declarations.

“Section 27 recovery alone cannot lead to a conviction and here it fails to implicate A4 since there is no connection to the crime proved, but for the human blood found, not indicated to be that of the accused.”, the Court observed, stressing that the recovery evidence alone would not be sufficient to bring in conviction unless corroborated by other reliable material establishing the accused's involvement in the offence.

“...the blood stains found on the weapon recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which by itself cannot lead to a finding of guilt without other circumstances which provide a complete chain leading to the hypothesis of guilt…”, the Court added.

“Definitely the blood of the accused would have been spilled at the scene, since he sustained numerous cut injuries and would have been profusely bleeding at the spot from which he was alleged to have been transported to the hospital.”, noted the Court, while raising suspicion over the prosecution's case and the alleged recoveries questioning that if the deceased had suffered multiple bleeding injuries at the place of occurrence, why no bloodstains or other tell-tale signs of the assault were recovered from the scene.

The Bench further found the alleged dying declarations unreliable. It noted contradictions between the evidence of the doctors regarding whether the deceased was conscious after being brought to the hospital, and inconsistencies over who accompanied the injured to the hospital and when the alleged declarations were made.

Summarising its findings, the Court held that while the prosecution had proved that the death was homicidal, it had failed to prove the involvement of the accused.

"A brutal murder definitely, and we understand the anguish of the brother who was the revision petitioner. The murder went unavenged, but it is not for the courts to convict the accused on mere assumptions when the evidence led by the prosecution fails to satisfy the judicial mind, of the guilt of the accused," the Court observed.

It added that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence available to an accused, and that a plausible view taken by the trial court should not be overturned merely because another view is possible.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused was restored.

Cause Title: Khalil Pasha & Ors. Versus Abdul Rasheed & Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 727

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR

For Respondent(s) : M/S. Pba Legal, AOR Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.