2004 (2) TMI 701 - SC - Indian Laws

Prosecution's Case Falls Apart: Accused Appellant Acquitted Due to Evidence Discrepancies and Legal Missteps.

Anter Singh Versus State Of Rajasthan

The SC determined that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in evidence, ... Offence of homicidal death - Guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act - credibility of the prosecution version - Scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act - Whether evidence relating to recovery is acceptable when nonofficial witnesses did not support the recovery and made departure from the statements made during investigation - HELD THAT:- There was no evidence led as to when the bullets were handed over to the police by the doctor or where they were kept and in what condition. Though recovery from an open space may not always render it vulnerable, it would depend upon factual situation in a given case and the truthfulness or otherwise of such claim. In the case at hand the recovery was made from an open space visible from the place where the dead body was lying and at a close proximity. It is not clear from evidence that it was hidden in such a way so as making it difficult to be noticed. The evidence tendered is totally silent as to in whose custody were the bullets, empty cartridges and the pistol. The effect of such nonexplanation was considered by this Court in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab [1956 (2) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]. Although the interpretation and scope of Section 27 has been the subject of several authoritative pronouncements, its application to concrete cases in the background events proved therein is not always free from difficulty. It will, therefore, be worthwhile at the outset, to have a short and swift glance at Section 27 and be reminded of its requirements. The Section says : 'Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.' At one time it was held that the expression 'fact discovered' in the section is restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does not include a mental fact, now it is fairly settled that the expression 'fact discovered' includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused. The several discrepancies and shortcomings in evidence as noticed supra considerably corrode credibility of the prosecution version. That being so, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has not established the accusations against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and consequently he is entitled to be acquitted. Since he is on bail, the bail bonds be discharged. The appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Acceptability of evidence relating to recovery.2. Credibility of prosecution version.3. Application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.Summary:1. Acceptability of Evidence Relating to Recovery:The appellant was charged with offences u/s 302 IPC, 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court found the appellant guilty, imposing life imprisonment and additional sentences. The High Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant's counsel argued that the case hinged on the acceptability of evidence related to the recovery of a gun based on information given by the accused while in custody. The counsel pointed out that the recovery was from an open space accessible to anyone, questioning the credibility of the evidence.2. Credibility of Prosecution Version:The prosecution's version was that the accused provided information leading to the recovery of a gun, which was sent for forensic examination along with empty cartridges and bullets recovered from the deceased's body. However, several discrepancies were noted: the custody of the empty cartridges was not established, the delay in sending the cartridges for forensic examination was unexplained, and the evidence was silent on the custody of the bullets, cartridges, and pistol. The court found these discrepancies significant enough to question the credibility of the prosecution's version.3. Application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:The court examined the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact. The court noted that the information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the information provided by the accused and the recovery of the weapon used in the crime. The court highlighted that the evidence did not meet the requirements of Section 27, as the prosecution could not prove that the recovered pistol was the weapon of assault.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the accusations against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to several discrepancies and shortcomings in the evidence. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted. The appeal was allowed, and the bail bonds were discharged.