Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man

"In fact, the alleged recovery has also not been proved by the witnesses. Moreover, it is the prosecution case that the knife and Chunni were recovered from the house of PW3 Kurban. How the appellant come to know about his house and how the appellant entered into the house to hide those things? It is also not proved." Uttarakhand High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, observing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt after all material witnesses, including those related to the recovery of the murder weapon, turned hostile.

A bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah held that unproven recoveries and the lack of support from witnesses of fact create a fatal gap in the prosecution's narrative.

The court noted that the "golden rule" in criminal jurisprudence remains that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt. In the present case, the Bench observed that even the informant and the family members of the deceased did not support the allegations during the trial, leading to a complete breakdown of the evidentiary chain.

The appellant, Monu alias Gufran, was convicted by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, on February 25, 2019, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case was that the appellant, a distant relative, visited the house of the informant (PW1) and allegedly killed his youngest daughter, Muskaan, by slitting her throat after she caught him in a compromising position with her sister.

Following the incident, the police claimed to have recovered a knife and a Chunni (scarf) used in the crime at the instance of the appellant from the house of his uncle (PW3). However, during the trial, the appellant maintained that he was falsely implicated and that the witnesses had provided incorrect evidence.

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of the witnesses turning hostile. The court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary value of the recovery of weapons when the recovery witnesses and the informant denied the prosecution's version of events.

Prosecution Fails To Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The High Court began its analysis by emphasizing the fundamental principle of criminal law: the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution. The Bench noted that PW1 Inam, the father of the deceased and the informant, did not support the case during his testimony. He categorically stated that he had not named any person as an accused in his report and failed to provide any evidence linking the appellant to the crime.

The Court observed that during cross-examination, nothing could be elicited from the informant to support the prosecution's claims. The bench remarked that when the very foundation of the FIR is disowned by the informant in the witness box, the structural integrity of the criminal case is severely compromised.

Hostile Witnesses Undermine Recovery Of Murder Weapon

A significant portion of the judgment focused on the "recovery" of the incriminating articles. The prosecution claimed that a knife and a Chunni were recovered based on the appellant’s disclosure. However, PW3 Kurban, the uncle of the deceased and the alleged witness to the recovery, turned hostile. He testified that nothing was recovered in his presence and denied putting his thumb impression on any recovery documents.

The Court highlighted a logical inconsistency in the prosecution's claim regarding the location of the recovery. It questioned how the appellant, who did not have control over PW3’s house, could have hidden the items there. "How the appellant come to know about his house and how the appellant entered into the house to hide those things? It is also not proved," the Bench noted.

Confession During Interrogation Insufficient Without Corroboration

While the Investigating Officer (PW6) testified that the appellant had confessed to the guilt during interrogation, the Court found this insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Bench observed that while the IO detailed the steps of the investigation, the lack of support from independent witnesses or family members regarding the motive or the act itself rendered the confession legally hollow in the eyes of the court.

The Court further noted that the witnesses of fact—the mother (PW2), the uncle (PW3), and the sister (PW4) of the deceased—had all been declared hostile. Even though PW4 (the sister) admitted the appellant was in the village on the day of the incident, she did not support the allegation that he committed the murder or fled the scene.

Evidentiary Value of Unproven Recoveries

The Court held that since the recovery of the weapon was not proved by independent witnesses, it could not be used as incriminating evidence. The Bench reiterated that for a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to have weight, the fact of the discovery must be clearly linked to the accused and corroborated by reliable witnesses, which was entirely missing in this case.

Furthermore, the Court took note of the fact that the sister of the deceased, who was also accused in the matter, had already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. Given the total lack of credible evidence, the Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated February 25, 2019. The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The Court directed that the appellant be set free forthwith from jail, provided he is not wanted in any other case, subject to the filing of a personal bond under Section 437-A of the CrPC.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2024