Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all four appellants of charges under Sections 302, 307, 460, 506, 120-B, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between the discovery of a material object and its use in the commission of the offence.
Brief Facts:
The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of the mother-in-law of appellant No.1. The prosecution alleged that the accused, acting on a conspiracy, trespassed into the victim’s house and killed her, while also causing serious injuries to her husband. The prosecution relied on recoveries made pursuant to the appellants' memorandum statements. Though the FSL report confirmed the presence of blood on the recovered articles, the report was not exhibited, nor were the accused questioned regarding the report under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The trial court convicted appellant No.1 under Sections 506 Part-II, 109/506, 109/302, and 109/307 IPC, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Appellants Nos. 2 to 4 were convicted under Sections 120-B, 460, 302, and 307 IPC and also sentenced to life imprisonment. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution's case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence and lacked direct proof. He submitted that the FSL report was never exhibited, and no questions were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC regarding the recoveries. The only basis for conviction was suspicion and hostile relations between appellant No.1 and his in-laws, which could not substitute for legal proof.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned State counsel supported the trial court’s judgment and contended that the prosecution had proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. It was argued that the postmortem findings, recovery of weapons, and the sequence of events sufficiently established the guilt of the accused.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the threats issued by appellant No.1 were made six to seven months before the incident and were not followed up by any complaint. The alleged abetment by appellant No.1 and the involvement of the other accused were not supported by credible evidence.
The Court observed that disclosure alone under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not prove the offence unless there is a direct nexus between the recovered item and the crime. The Court said that the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between the discovery of a material object and its use in the commission of the offence. Additionally, failure to confront the accused with the FSL findings under Section 313 CrPC rendered the evidence inadmissible.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of all four appellants.
Case Title: Joy Thankan @ Molu & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1498/2015
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. Sunil Otwani
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate
Picture Source :
