Showing posts with label seizure of sword. Show all posts
Showing posts with label seizure of sword. Show all posts

Friday, 11 September 2026

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove seizure of cloths and sword from possession of accused?

In the absence of independent evidence to establish that incriminating articles were seized from the respondents or at their instance, the evidence of P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) (Exh. 24), which is silent on the points that he seized blood stained swords at the instance of the respondents, wrapped them tightly, sealed them on the spot immediately after their seizure and sent them to the Chemical Analyzer in the same condition, would not be helpful to the prosecution to establish that the swords alleged to have been seized by this witness were used at the time of the incident. {Para 16}

17. P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) does not state that he seized the clothes of respondent No. 1. He states that he arrested respondent No. 2 on 02.11.1995 and seized the clothes from his person vide panchanama (Exh. 23). However, he does not state that the said clothes were stained with blood. Therefore, seizure of the clothes of respondent No. 2 would not connect him with the incident in question.

18. P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) further deposes that he arrested respondent No. 3 on 02.11.1995 and seized his blood stained clothes under panchanama (Exh. 22). However, this evidence is very vague and general. He does not state about the description of the clothes seized from the person of respondent No. 3. The incident took place on 26.10.1995. It does not appear to be natural and probable that after committing the alleged offences, respondent No. 3 would continue to wear the same clothes until his arrest on 02.11.1995, so as to enable P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) to collect incriminating evidence against him. Moreover, there is no whisper in the evidence of P.S.I. Mule (P.W. 6) that he wrapped those clothes, sealed them and sent them to the Chemical Analyzer in the same condition. In the circumstances, the seizure of clothes of respondent No. 3, even if accepted, would not connect him with the incident in question.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1999

Decided On: 08.09.2016

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shivaji and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sambhaji Shiwaji Shinde and Sangitrao S. Patil, JJ.

Author: Sangitrao S. Patil, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2424/2016,2016 ALL M R (Cri) 4436.

Print Page