Khushi Doshi
Published on: March 2, 2022 at 12:25 IST
Supreme Court bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat, and PS Narasimha recently overruled a murder conviction, citing the fact that the only evidence linking him to the crime was the alleged recovery of stolen property from him.
Supreme Court cited precedents that stated it may be risky to uphold a murder conviction solely on the basis of the recovery of an article.
The Bench cited the following tests in Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh (2019) 3 SCC 770:
- The first point to make is that theft and murder are both part of the same transaction. The circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder were performed together. However, it is not safe to conclude that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer
- The nature of the stolen article;
- The manner in which it was acquired by the owner;
- The nature of evidence about its identification;
- The manner in which it was dealt with by the accused;
- The place and circumstances of its recovery;
- The length of the intervening period;”
The Bench also noted the observation in Sanwant Khan v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54, in which the Supreme Court held that if the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property, and while the circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder must have occurred concurrently, it is not safe to conclude that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer. Suspicion cannot be used as a substitute for proof.
In light of this, the Supreme Court stated in the current case that the only evidence that could be used against the appellant is of extremely poor quality.
There is no additional evidence on the record that could be used to convict the appellant. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a result of the strength of the law stated by this Court.
Also Read- Vigilance Investigation by Different Agencies