In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the murder conviction of an accused, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused’s statement and the discovery of the victim’s body. The verdict underscores a crucial aspect of Section 27 of the Evidence Act: confessional statements cannot be used against an accused unless they directly lead to new discoveries.
The case revolved around a missing person complaint that escalated into a murder charge. The accused was last seen with the victim and later made a statement in police custody, allegedly leading to the recovery of the body. However, the Supreme Court found that witnesses had provided conflicting accounts—some stating they only saw the body at the police station, while another claimed the accused had identified the location.
Highlighting inconsistencies, the Court ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented did not form an unbroken chain proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It pointed out that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires all links in the chain to be indisputably proven. The absence of a clear motive and the prosecution’s failure to examine key witnesses further weakened the case.
Citing past precedents, the Court concluded that the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as the High Court had erred in upholding the conviction. The ruling reinforces the principle that legal safeguards must be strictly followed in criminal cases, preventing convictions based on incomplete or speculative evidence.