The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench set aside a 2006 triple-murder conviction, as Justices Rajnish Kumar and Zafeer Ahmad ruled the circumstantial evidence incomplete and unreliable. The court stressed extra-judicial confessions are weak, and recoveries cannot prove guilt reasonable doubt.
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has set aside the conviction and life sentence of a man accused of murdering his parents and brother in 2006. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad, acquitted the appellant, stating that the prosecution did not establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court noted that extra-judicial confessions are considered weak evidence and require careful examination. Furthermore, the mere recovery of weapons without independent witnesses cannot support a conviction.
Also Read: Supreme Court to Decide: Can Murder Convict Serve Consecutive Life Sentences?
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the judgment from December 15, 2007, issued by the Sessions Judge in Balrampur in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2006. The appellant, Shiv Pujan Verma, had been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murders of his father Raghunath, mother Kamla, and brother Munshi.
The prosecution’s case began when Mangal Prasad Verma (the appellant’s son) filed a written report on January 17, 2006, stating that his grandfather, grandmother, and uncle had been murdered by unknown individuals during the night. Although the FIR was initially registered against unidentified persons, the investigation later targeted Shiv Pujan Verma.
The police claimed that the appellant confessed during interrogation and guided them to the recovery of an axe and a stick from sugarcane leaves. The prosecution heavily relied on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to one Ram Chhabiley (PW-2) and the recovery of the weapons.
Arguments of Parties:
Counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajiva Dubey, argued that the conviction was based on conjecture, noting that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. He emphasized that the prosecution’s case predominantly rested on the testimony of PW-2, which he deemed unreliable. He further contended that independent witnesses who could attest to the recovery of the weapons had turned hostile and that the appellant had been falsely implicated.
The learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the appeal, asserting that there was a complete chain of circumstances. The State argued that the recovery of murder weapons at the appellant’s direction, alongside the extra-judicial confession and a property dispute as motive, proved his guilt.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Delivering the judgment for the Bench, Justice Zafeer Ahmad thoroughly analyzed the circumstantial evidence.
- On Extra-Judicial Confession:
The Court scrutinized the evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confession allegedly made to PW-2. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sahadevan v. State of T.N. (2012), the Bench reiterated that such confessions are weak evidence and must be assessed cautiously. The Court found PW-2’s testimony unreliable, as he lacked any position of authority or trust that would prompt a voluntary confession. Additionally, PW-2’s silence after being notified of a triple murder was seen as “inconsistent with ordinary human behaviour.”
- On Recovery of Weapons:
Regarding the recovery of the axe and stick under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court noted that independent witnesses, PW-3 (Mahendra Nath) and PW-4 (Guddan), turned hostile and denied witnessing any recovery, claiming their signatures were obtained on blank papers. The Court ruled that a recovery based solely on a police statement without independent corroboration does not inspire confidence.
Referring to Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024), the Bench remarked:
“Mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon, even if it bears the same blood group as the victim, is insufficient to prove the charge of murder unless the recovery is convincingly linked to the crime and forms part of a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances.”
ALSO READ: 104-Year Old Serving Life Sentence For Murder| SC Grants Interim Bail
- Circumstantial Evidence and the ‘Panchsheel’ Principles:
The Court applied the “five golden principles” (panchsheel) regarding circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984). The Bench concluded that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a complete chain of circumstances that would exclude all hypotheses except the accused’s guilt.
The Court stated,
“The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution neither stand firmly proved nor form a continuous and unbroken chain. They do not point exclusively toward the guilt of the appellant, nor do they exclude other reasonable hypotheses consistent with his innocence,”
- On Motive:
The Court acknowledged the existence of a property dispute but clarified that motive cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction.
Citing Mahendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Bench asserted,
“Motive can only be an additional link in a proved chain of circumstances; it cannot by itself take the place of proof.”
Decision:
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court had erred by relying on weak and uncorroborated evidence. The Bench held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
The Court remarked,
“In criminal law, even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal,”
Case Title: Shiv Pujan Verma v. State of U.P. Cri Appeal No. 79 of 2008
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
