Priya Gour
Published on: 7 August 2022 at 19:01 IST
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi observed that the recovery of a weapon, that is absolutely in the knowledge of the accused is reliable and acceptable by the court. The Court said so while upholding the conviction of a murder convict, sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in 2018.
The Court noted that if the place of hiding the weapon is exclusively within the knowledge of the accused and no other person, then the recovery of weapon that place shall be relied upon.
An FIR was filed by the complainant Shail Kumari Sharma alleging that after her departure from the house, her husband Prem Kishan Sharma (deceased) was murdered by her son Anurag Sharma. She contended that after her return , her husband was found lying dead in the corridor at her house’s 1st floor.
She accused her son Anurag of the same by submitting that he was absent from the house then. He was drug addict and made demands of money from his father.
Arrest of the accused appellant was made, along with the weapon recovery .The weapon was recovered with blood present on it from a box, found in the accused’s room, near the kitchen of the house.
Post investigation, the accused-appellant was charged under Section 313 of Cr.PC.
However, the same was denied by the accused appellant where he said that his father was murdered in order to rob his house. False accusations have been made against him and that he was not a drug addict but was handicapped majorly. He was induced sleeping medication due to his disability related depression.
“It means that when the deceased was murdered, it was accused only, who was in the house with the deceased. Hence, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act comes into application.”
The Court keeping in mind that complainant’s cross examination, said that the investigation points to that fact that the accused had fled away after committing the murder. Also, the complainant’s statement that no one else was present in the house when she left, is reliable.
No evidence has been put before the court by the accused of the robbery taking place at his house.
The recovery of the weapon from the place exclusively known to the accused fails to prove his innocence. The Court noted:
“If the place of hiding the weapon is exclusively within the knowledge of accused and that place cannot be or is not in the knowledge of any other person and the weapon is recovered from the same place, such type of recovery is absolutely reliable and it cannot be doubted or it cannot be presumed that weapon is planted.”
“The Investigating Officer (PW6) has also proved the factum of recovery in his testimony before the learned trial court.”
The investigations confirmed the presence of blood on the weapon. Also, the trial court had upheld that there was no connection between the disability of the accused and forcible use of weapon by him.
Thereby, the Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, on his failure to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.