Weapon’s seizure doesn’t link person to murder: Hyderabad High Court

HYDERABAD: Mere seizure of a weapon from a person could not, by itself, connect him with the killing of another person unless the prosecution establishes the link between the seized weapon and the killing of the deceased. If the trial court holds such a person guilty of the offence, the same will not sustain in the appellate court. In one such case before the Hyderabad High Court, the sole accused (appellant) challenged the judgment of the third additional sessions judge.

The case of the prosecution was that the woman (who was murdered) and her husband had prior acquaintance with the appellant and that the couple had sought a hand loan for construction of their house. The appellant gave them the money for which the woman executed a document pertaining to their house plot but did not repay the loan. On the day of the incident, the appellant went to their house and demanded repayment of the loan. When she demanded return of the documents as the loan had been cleared, an altercation took place due to which the former grew wild,  picked up an axe and attacked her indiscriminately, as a result of which she fell down in a pool of blood which was witnessed by her husband and others. The appellant fled away from the place and the other people took her to a local hospital where she succumbed to the injuries.

Police registered a case under Section 302 of IPC and recorded the statement of the husband of the deceased. Autopsy was conducted and the post-mortem report stated that the death was ‘due to head injury’. After a few days the police arrested the appellant and seized from his possession the axe which was used in the commission of the offence. Later, the police filed the charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC. The prosecution examined the deceased woman’s husband and others. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the lower court had delivered the judgment which was challenged in High Court.

The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the prosecution failed to connect the appellant to the murder. The weapon seized was not sent to forensic lab for its opinion. Though the prosecution cited the husband of the deceased and others as eyewitnesses, two of the prosecution witnesses were planted and others turned hostile. Thus, the evidence of the husband did not receive corroboration. Motive, as alleged in the report, on one side and inquest panchanama, FIR and the charge-sheet on the other side are at variance. There was absolutely no need for the appellant to go to the house of the deceased and the serious contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses rendered the case incredible, he argued.

Opposing the above submissions, the state public prosecutor supported the judgment of the lower court. A division bench of the High Court pointed out that there was no explanation either in the material documents or in the charge sheet on the motive of the appellant to kill the woman. If the version of the victim’s husband was taken into consideration, there was no need for the appellant to go to the house of the deceased if he had already got back the money. Besides, a close analysis of the evidence revealed serious contradictions, it opined.

The bench said that the serious lacuna in the prosecution case lay in the fact that the weapon concerned was not sent to forensic lab for its opinion as to whether it contained human blood. Weapon being an axe is a commonly available weapon. Mere seizure of an axe from a person does not establish nexus between an offence and the person from whose possession the weapon is seized, unless the prosecution establishes that it is with that weapon that the offence was committed.

The investigating agency failed to obtain forensic report proving that the seized weapon was used in the commission of the offence. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish even this link, the bench further pointed out and allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the lower court and directed the authorities to release the appellant forthwith.