2007 Supreme(SC) 1593

2008(8) Supreme 568
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Keshav — Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 620 of 2006
Decided on : 12-12-2007

Important points
Discovery, in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act would be admissible in evidence, provided the recovery was that of a fact which was relevant to connect the same with the commission of crime.
Recovery of a weapon at the instance of the accused which has no nexus with the cause of death of the deceased is inadmissible in evidence.
A judgment of conviction cannot be recorded only on the basis of motive.
Circumstance of last seen together becomes relevant only when death is proved to have taken place within a short time of accused and the deceased being last seen.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Prosecution of appellant for committing murder of his brother in law as he was not repaying a loan taken from him – Prosecution case that on 18-12-1995 appellant and co-accused came to field of deceased and demanded back loan amount – Since deceased was expecting payment of some amount of compensation from State, they allegedly decided to leave for Nanded for collecting said amount of compensation – Deceased did not return back home – Appellant allegedly informed wife of deceased on 20-12-1995 that he had killed him and asked her not to disclose said fact to anybody – FIR was loged when Pw1 a resident of Nandad informed officer incharge in police station that one skeleton had been seen in his brother’s land - Trial court as also High Court, on analyzing materials brought on records by prosecution, convicted appellant - Appeal there against - Only a skeleton was recovered - By no norms, a dead body would be skeletalised within a period of 3-4 days - It in ordinary course takes atleast a few weeks - Nothing on record to show that vultures or other animals ate away parts of dead body - Had that been so same would have been noticed by PW-1 and his brother as well as by Investigating Officer - Dead body was lying in an open field at least for four days – How apparels and cloths purported to be belonging to deceased had been found near dead body separately was beyond any comprehension - If deceased was killed by using a hard and blunt substance on his head as it appeared from post-mortem report, portion of clothes of deceased would still be found over skeleton and not at a distance from it - If dead body was eaten away by vultures or other animals, garments would have also been found in torn condition and beyond recognition - Difficult to rely upon extra judicial confession purported to have been made by appellant to PW-3 as ordinarily she would have disclosed same to her relative and lodged a first information report immediately thereafter - Discovery of knife at behest of appellant also was not of much significance as prosecution’s case itself was that death was caused by inflicting an injury by a hard and blunt substance - Investigating Officer even could not decipher as to whether the dead body was of a male or a female - No expert was examined to establish that an identification was forensically possible - Impugned judgment of conviction held unsustainable in facts and circumstances of case. (Paras 6 to 10,12,13)

       (2007) 3 SCC 755 (1984) 4 SCC 1116; (2002) 8 SCC 45 relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

       Appellant was prosecuted for committing murder of his brother in law as he was not repaying a loan taken from him. As per Prosecution case on 18-12-1995 appellant and co-accused came to field of deceased and demanded back loan amount. Since deceased was expecting payment of some amount of compensation from State, they allegedly decided to leave for Nanded for collecting said amount of compensation. Deceased did not return back home. Appellant allegedly informed wife of deceased on 20-12-1995 that he had killed him and asked her not to disclose said fact to anybody. FIR was lodged when Pw1 a resident of Nandad informed officer incharge in police station that one skeleton had been seen in his brother’s land. Trial court as also High Court, on analyzing materials brought on records by prosecution, convicted appellant.

       Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that only a skeleton was recovered. By no norms, a dead body would be skeletalised within a period of 3-4 days. It in ordinary course takes atleast a few weeks. Nothing on record to show that vultures or other animals ate away parts of dead body. Had that been so same would have been noticed by PW-1 and his brother as well as by Investigating Officer. Dead body was lying in an open field at least for four days. How apparels and cloths purported to be belonging to deceased had been found near dead body separately was beyond any comprehension. If deceased was killed by using a hard and blunt substance on his head as it appeared from post-mortem report, portion of clothes of deceased would still be found over skeleton and not at a distance from it. If dead body was eaten away by vultures or other animals, garments would have also been found in torn condition and beyond recognition. Difficult to rely upon extra judicial confession purported to have been made by appellant to PW-3 as ordinarily she would have disclosed same to her relative and lodged a first information report immediately thereafter. Discovery of knife at behest of appellant also was not of much significance as prosecution case itself was that death was caused by inflicting an injury by a hard and blunt substance. Investigating Officer even could not decipher as to whether the dead body was of a male or a female. No expert was examined to establish that an identification was forensically possible. Impugned judgment of conviction held unsustainable in facts and circumstances of case.