FIR – Earliest Version – Omission of Accused When the earliest report (FIR) expresses suspicion only against some accused and is silent regarding others, such omission weakens the prosecution case against the latter category of accused. (Para 15)

advocatemmmohan

1. Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only when the findings of the Trial Court are perverse, illegal, or contrary to evidence; where the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal warrants confirmation.
(Paras 18–19)

---

2. Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances

When a prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved conclusively and all the circumstances must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused; failure to establish any link is fatal to the prosecution.
(Paras 13, 18)

---

3. Motive – Proof – Absence of Clear Motive

Where multiple and inconsistent motives are alleged against different sets of accused and no clear or uniform motive is established, motive cannot be treated as a proved circumstance against the accused.
(Paras 14–15)

---

4. FIR – Earliest Version – Omission of Accused

When the earliest report (FIR) expresses suspicion only against some accused and is silent regarding others, such omission weakens the prosecution case against the latter category of accused.
(Para 15)

---

5. Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act – Stock Mediator

Recovery allegedly made at the instance of the accused becomes doubtful where the mediator is shown to be a stock mediator repeatedly used by the police and associated with all stages of investigation.
(Para 16)

---

6. Recovery of Weapon – Delay and Improbability

Recovery of weapons from a pond after a considerable lapse of time, coupled with the improbability of human blood being detected after prolonged submersion in water, renders the recovery unreliable.
(Para 16)

---

7. Confession to Police – Inadmissibility

Confession made by an accused to a police officer while in police custody is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is wholly inadmissible in evidence.
(Para 17)

---

8. Failure of Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of Doubt

Where motive, recovery, and confession—all relied upon circumstances—remain unproved, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt, and acquittal must follow.
(Paras 17–18)

---

9. Criminal Appeal – Abatement on Death of Accused

Criminal appeal abates against accused who die during pendency of appeal.
(Paras 4, 20)

---

ANALYSIS

The prosecution case was entirely circumstantial, there being no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The Trial Court and the High Court identified three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution:

1. Motive,

2. Recovery of weapons (M.Os.5 to 7) pursuant to alleged confession, and

3. Confession statements made before the Investigating Officer.

Motive

The prosecution alleged two different motives for two different groups of accused. The Court found that:

• The motives were inconsistent,

• The earliest complaint (Ex.P1) expressed suspicion only against accused Nos.9 to 12, and

• No motive was attributed at that stage against accused Nos.1 to 8.

This inconsistency and omission led the Court to conclude that motive was not proved.

Recovery

The alleged recovery suffered from multiple infirmities:

• The confession leading to recovery was made while the accused were in police custody,

• The mediator (P.W.19) was a stock mediator, involved in all stages of investigation, and

• Recovery from a pond after 20 days, with alleged detection of human blood, was found highly improbable.

Accordingly, the recovery was disbelieved.

Confession

The alleged confession was held to be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, being a confession to a police officer while in custody, and therefore inadmissible.

Conclusion on Evidence

With all three circumstances failing, the Court held that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was therefore upheld.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution fails to establish motive, recovery, and admissible confession as credible and cogent circumstances forming a complete chain, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt, and an order of acquittal does not warrant interference in appeal.