Saturday 10 June 2023

Under which circumstances the court should not rely on recovery of knife recovered as per S 27 of Evidence Act?

 Circumstances (f), (g) (h) and (i) - Re: Disclosure statements, consequential discoveries and their connect with crime.

71. With regard to the making of disclosure and the consequential discoveries/recoveries, according to the prosecution on 23.09.2000 the two Accused made disclosures assuring recovery of weapon of assault and blood-stained clothes worn by them at the time of commission of murder. But, admittedly, no discovery could be effected pursuant thereto. Consequently, both the courts below discarded the disclosure statement made on 23.09.2000. However, according to the prosecution, another set of disclosure statements were made on 25.09.2000. In pursuance thereof, a knife kept in the bushes behind a hospital was recovered at the instance of Neeraj and blood-stained clothes, kept at the rooftop of the same building, were recovered at the instance of Santosh @ Bhure. Importantly, both the Accused have denied such disclosures and recovery at their instance.
81. As regards recovery of knife at the instance of Neeraj, the same has been denied by Neeraj and there appears no independent witness to support it, inasmuch as PW13, touted as a public witness, turned out to be a special police officer and insofar as the other police witnesses are concerned, we have already doubted their conduct in setting up disclosure statements. Moreover, the place from where recovery is made is accessible to all and sundry. Otherwise also, its incriminating value is extremely limited because, firstly, there is no forensic evidence connecting the knife with the crime; secondly, the knife is a common knife which could easily be available; thirdly, the wounds found on the body of the deceased were of different dimensions giving rise to possibility of use of more weapon than one; and, fourthly, the entire exercise of recovery does not inspire our confidence, particularly, because the first attempt to recover had failed.


Criminal Appeal Nos. 575 and 576 of 2011

Decided On: 28.04.2023

 Santosh  Vs.   State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Author: Manoj Misra, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0499/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment