The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal filed against conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act and opined that considering facts and circumstances of the present case, the evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the Appellant could not be accepted as reliable.
It was also ruled that the part of the statement of the Accused, which recorded that he would show the place where he had thrown the dead bodies, was not admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant, Accused No.2 along with Accused No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Appellant and the Co-accused were ordered to undergo life imprisonment. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that the case of the Prosecution was not based on circumstantial evidence but on the eye-witness. It was urged that in the absence of any independent witness, the recovery of the alleged weapon at the instance of the Appellant could not be relied upon.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was submitted that the recovery of the weapon of assault had been proved to have been made at the instance of the Appellant.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the case of the prosecution was not based on circusmtantial evidence, but only on the alleged eye-witness. As neither PW-1 nor PW-3 supported the prosecution, what remained to be considered was only the evidence of alleged recovery at the instance of the Appellant.
Noting the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was observed that the evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant cannot be accepted as reliable.
It was also opined that the part of the statement of the Accused, which recorded that he would show the place where he had thrown the dead bodies, was not admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872.
The decision of the Court:
Based on aforementioned reasons, the Apex Court, accordingly, allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Krishan v State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 52 SC
Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal
Advocate for the Respondents: Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
