Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 27 – When disclosure statement was recorded at the police station whereas recovery was made from the place pointed out by the accused enroute to the police station- It was a case of recovery from the place allegedly pointed out by the accused and not based on a disclosure statement- The court has to be cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of section 27 of the Evidence Act. (Para 37)
Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 300-302,304 -When there were multiple injuries on the body of the deceased apart from two incised wounds on the head with underlying fracture of occipital bone of the skull- whosoever committed the crime had clear intention to kill the deceased. (Para 40)
Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence -(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) the circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused; (iv) the circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis regarding the guilt of the accused; and (v) they must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one which is sought to be proved.- in a case based on circumstantial evidence where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt and the other to his innocence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of one which is favorable to him- the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Therefore, even if the prosecution evidence generates strong suspicion against the accused, it cannot be a substitute for proof. (Para 19-22)
Criminal Trial – Motive on its own cannot make or break the prosecution case. (Para 25)
Indian Evidence Act – Section 106- Last Seen Theory – The circumstance of deceased being last seen alive in the company of the deceased is a vital link in the chain of other circumstances but on its own strength it is insufficient to sustain conviction unless the time-gap between the deceased being last seen alive with the accused and recovery of dead body of the deceased is so small that possibility of any other person being the author of the crime is just about impossible. Where the time-gap is large, intervening circumstances including act by some third person cannot be ruled out.10 In such a case, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the accused merely because he has failed to prove as to when he parted company of the deceased- if two or more persons are seen walking on a public street, either side by side, or behind one another, it is not such a circumstance from which it may be inferred with a degree of certainty that those were together or in company of each other. Quite often on a public path a person may happen to walk side by side a stranger for a considerable distance without even talking to him. Likewise, a person may exchange pleasantries with another person walking on the path, but that by itself is not sufficient to infer that the two are in company of each other. (Para 26- 27)