Ravinder Kumar vs State Of NCT Of Delhi 2024 INSC 211 – Ss 27,106 Evidence Act – Circumstantial Evidence

Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 – For a recovery to be admissible on the statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it has to be from such a place which is exclusively within the knowledge of the maker thereof. When (1) the recovery is from a place accessible to one and all and the recovery panchnama also does not mention the date regarding such a recovery (2). there is no entry in malkhana register with regard to the deposit of the said articles and sending them to the FSL for chemical examination, the said circumstances cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 13)

Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – It is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ – that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty – the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved -there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused – the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – Referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 INSC 121 (Para 8-10)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 – The burden shifts on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution will have to prove its case -Where husband and wife reside together in a house and the crime is committed inside the house, it will be for the husband to explain how the death occurred in the house where they cohabited together. However, even in such a case, the prosecution will have to first establish that before the death occurred, the deceased and the accused were seen in the said house – Referred to Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 : 2006 INSC 691

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *