The Supreme Court has restored the acquittal of six men in a murder case dating back to 1988, holding that recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—now reflected in Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam—cannot, by themselves, justify a conviction unless supported by reliable evidence linking the recovered material to the crime.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish a clear connection between the seized articles and the murder, despite forensic reports indicating the presence of human blood on the recovered weapon and clothing.
Court Finds Recovery Evidence Inadequate
The prosecution had relied primarily on the recovery of a weapon allegedly at the instance of one accused and the seizure of bloodstained clothes belonging to another. Although chemical examination confirmed the presence of human blood, there was no evidence proving that the blood belonged to the deceased or otherwise connecting the recovered items to the offence.
The Bench observed that evidence obtained through Section 27 recoveries cannot independently establish guilt. Such recoveries, the Court said, acquire evidentiary value only when supported by other circumstances that complete the chain of evidence against the accused.
The Court emphasized that merely discovering human blood on a recovered object does not prove involvement in a crime unless the prosecution establishes its nexus with the victim and the offence.
Doubts Over the Prosecution’s Version
The case arose from the killing 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. Following an earlier remand by the Supreme Court on procedural issues, the High Court had directed the trial court to reassess eyewitness testimony, recovery evidence and forensic reports while agreeing with the rejection of the alleged dying declarations.
While examining the evidence, the Supreme Court noted significant gaps in the prosecution’s narrative. It questioned why investigators failed to recover bloodstains or other physical traces from the alleged scene of the attack, despite the prosecution’s own case that the victim had sustained multiple bleeding injuries there.
The Bench remarked that such an omission cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s reconstruction of the incident and weakened the evidentiary value of the alleged recoveries.
Dying Declarations Also Found Unreliable
The Court also declined to place reliance on the alleged dying declarations, pointing to inconsistencies in the testimony of medical witnesses. Contradictions emerged regarding whether the deceased was conscious after reaching the hospital, who had accompanied him there, and the circumstances in which the purported declarations were made.
These discrepancies, the Bench observed, further undermined the prosecution’s case.
Acquittal Restored
Summing up its conclusions, the Court held that although the prosecution had successfully proved that the death was homicidal, it had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible for the crime.
The Bench acknowledged the anguish of the victim’s family over an unsolved murder but stressed that criminal courts cannot record convictions on suspicion or incomplete evidence. It reiterated that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and where the trial court’s assessment represents a reasonable and plausible view of the evidence, an appellate court should not interfere merely because another interpretation is possible.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court’s judgment acquitting all six accused.
