Section 27 of indian evidence act.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 17 September 2011
This query is : Resolved
Whether seal is necessary while seizing of weapon by Investigating Officer under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act?
Plz. suggest any ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the above mentioned point.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 17 September 2011
(2010) 3 MLJ (Crl) 452 SC
Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Another
Vs
State of Madhya Pradesh
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 302 read with 120 – B – Murder case –
Conviction and death sentence - Case rests on circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of circumstantial evidence – Principles – Extension of benefit of doubt - Death sentence awarded liable to be set aside.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
Whether the conviction and death sentence awarded are justified when the case rests on the circumstantial evidence which is doubtful and when the benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused?
QUREY:
Whether the conviction and death sentence awarded are justified when the case rests on the circumstantial evidence which is doubtful and when the benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused?
Held: Considering the fact and also going by the test of appreciation of circumstantial evidence, this Court has to extend the benefit of doubt of A -4 and A-5 and cannot sustain the judgment and order of conviction of A-4 and A-5 under Section 302/120-B of I.P.C. read with Section 25(1)(a)(b) and Section 27 of the Arms Act and consequently the death sentence awarded to them by the High Court is set aside. This Court is of the view that the so called circumstantial evidence against A-4 and A-5 does not constitute a complete chain which is consistent with the guilt of A-4 and A-5 and incompatible with their innocence.
Test Identification Parade – TIP not substantive evidence – Delay in holding Test Identification parade – Effect of.
Held: The decision of this Court is Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 3 SCC 368 (1) is more relevant to the facts of the case in hand. In Soni (Supra), the facts have not been discussed in the judgment which was rather brief but one thing is made clear that TS.I. Parade was held after a lapse of 42 days from the date of the arrest of the appellant. This Court held that such delay in holding the T.I. parade by itself throws a doubt on the genuineness of such identification and we respectfully agree with the view that it is difficult to remember the facial expression of the accused persons after such a long gap in the facts of this case. Therefore, the alleged identification of A-5 after a gap of two months throws a doubt on the genuineness of such identification especially when P.W.3 had very little chance to see either A-4 and A-5. Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Reliability of materials discovered pursuant to facts deposed by accused in police custody. Held: The limited nature of the admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 can be illustrated by the following example: Suppose a person accused of murder deposes to the police officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime is committed is discovered, but as a result of such discovery no inference can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the knife with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused. So the objection of the defence counsel to the discovery made by the prosecution in this case cannot be sustained. But the discovery by itself does not help the prosecution to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on A-4 and A-5 by the High Court.
Ravikant Soni
(Expert) 17 September 2011
I agree with makkad sir,
This rulling also cited in AIR.
relevant portion........
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.27 - EVIDENCE - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Discovery of weapon - If discovery is otherwise reliable, its evidentiary value is not diluted just by reason of non-compliance with the provision of S.100(4) or S.100(5) of Criminal P.C. Paras 59, 65)
AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 762 "Musheer Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh"
