The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon. There must be some corroborative evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Even if the murder weapon is recovered and it is blood-stained also, that does not prove the guilt of the accused.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased and in which she adduced that she went to the field for work and then, was informed by her sister-in-law that her husband had been assaulted by her brother-in-law with the axe. As a result of the assault, her husband was lying unconscious in the courtyard. Thereafter, the informant rushed to her home and the injured was taken to the hospital. The First Information Report was initially registered under Sections 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. The learned session judge convicted the appellant for the offense punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant submitted that there exists no eye witness to the occurrence. It was furthermore submitted that Mere recovery of a weapon, even if the same is the murder weapon, on the confessional statement of the appellant, cannot lead to conviction. There has to be some corroborating evidence, which is missing in the instant case.
Contentions of the State
The State contended that the informant is the eyewitness to the present case and the appellant can be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the eyewitness. It was furthermore submitted that on the basis of the confession made by the accused, the murder weapon was recovered.
Observations of the Court
The court observed that the informant is not an eyewitness to the case and she had developed the story and made herself an eye witness to the case.
The court furthermore observed that conviction cannot be established solely by a confessional statement that results in the recovery of a weapon. There needs to be more reliable corroborating evidence. It does not establish the guilt of the accused even in the event that the murder weapon is found and stained with blood as well. The appellant cannot by any means be found guilty based on just one incident. In order to convict the appellant, there needs to be some chain of evidence and corroboration aside from the recovery, which should also be examined. In this instance, there is no other corroborative material, rather no evidence at all.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Raja Naykar versus State of Chhattisgarh, and Mustkeem versus State of Rajasthan.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the order of conviction passed by the learned session judge.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case title: Sanjay Kujur V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen, and Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Chand
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1359 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
