Evidence - common object - Discovery of fact - Recovery
2022 CRI. L. J. 2115
AIROnline 2022 KAR 784
(KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)
Somashekara Mastaiah v. Vasanthakumar and others.
Criminal Appeal No. 778 of 2014, D/- 8-2-2022.
(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 300, 114, 504, 506-B, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149 -Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 3 - Murder with common object-Proof - Complain- ant who is eye-witness and brother of de- ceased deposed that accused persons on account of some political dispute hatched criminal conspiracy, armed with deadly weapons such as sword, machete and longs and assaulted his brother-deceased with said weapons resulted in his death Fact that complainant did not make any effort to rescue deceased from deadly assault made by accused persons appeared not only in evidence of complainant but also in depo- sitions of other witnesses - Eye-witnesses did not support prosecution case and their evidence runs contrary to deposition of complainant - Evidence of complainant, doubtful - Prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt Acquittal, proper. (Paras 47, 48)
(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 27 Discovery of fact - Only after some dis- covery, concept of recovery arises Merely because material objects are recov- ered at instance of accused, it cannot be said that prosecution proved guilt of accused in its entirety. (Para 34)
(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 27 Recovery evidence-Reliability Weapons i.e., sword, chopper, iron long and ma- chete allegedly used by accused respectively seized by I.O. at instance of accused Complainant has shown scene of crime and also subscribed his signature -Mere sub- scribing his signature it cannot be said that he has given evidence in entirety to prove guilt of accused unless his evidence has to be corroborated in each one of ingredients of offences levelled against accused per- sons-No specific evidence on part of pros- ecution relating to seizure of weapons al- legedly used by accused persons to eliminate deceased. (Paras 32, 34)