Court says FIR is not substantive evidence, alleged axe recovery was not proved under Section 27, and Section 106 cannot be used to fill gaps in prosecution case
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of Chhotu Verma in a murder case and acquitted him of charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
A division bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra allowed the criminal appeal filed by Verma against the trial court’s 2019 judgment that had sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The co-accused, Keskali, had already been acquitted by the trial court.
The case arose from the death of Chandan, the elder brother of the appellant, who was allegedly killed inside the family house in Banda on July 27, 2016. According to the prosecution, Verma had an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife, Keskali, and this alleged relationship created the motive for the murder. The prosecution claimed that Chandan was assaulted with an axe in the early hours of the morning.
However, the High Court found that the prosecution’s case was not supported by reliable evidence. The court noted that all three material witnesses of fact turned hostile during trial. The informant, PW-1 Lallu Verma, allegedly the father of the deceased, stated that his thumb impression had been taken on a blank paper. The court held that the FIR, even if it named the accused, could not be treated as substantive evidence of guilt.
The bench also rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the alleged recovery of the axe. It held that the recovery was not shown to have been made pursuant to any disclosure statement by the accused while in police custody, as required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court observed that the weapon was not proved to have been discovered at the instance of the appellant, and the mere presence of human blood on the axe could not cure this defect.
On the issue of burden of proof, the court said Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked to shift the burden onto the accused unless the prosecution first established foundational facts. Since the prosecution itself indicated that other family members were also present in the house, the occurrence could not be said to be especially within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant.
The bench further held that the material incriminating circumstances were not specifically and fairly put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As a result, those circumstances could not be used against him, especially when they had caused prejudice and denied him a fair opportunity to explain them.
The court also found that the alleged illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased’s wife had not been proved by substantive evidence, and therefore the motive itself remained unestablished. In the absence of a reliable motive, credible recovery, and supporting witness testimony, the court concluded that the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction, and ordered his release, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC. The court also directed payment of Rs. 15,000 as honorarium to the amicus curiae.
Bottom Line :
Circumstantial evidence - Murder conviction cannot be sustained where FIR is not substantive evidence, alleged recovery is not proved under Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 Section 106 cannot be invoked without foundational facts especially when other family members were present, and material incriminating circumstances were not properly put to accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. - Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Section 302 IPC, Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 313 CrPC, Section 437A CrPC, Section 34 IPC
Chhotu Verma v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985081
