Case: Debapriya Pal Vs. State of West Bengal

petition has already been dismissed. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the only reason given is that he was a friend of A1 and that is why he joined A1 in commission of the said crime. We may state at the outset that after examining the testimonies of the witnesses on this particular aspect, we find that it is not very strong inasmuch as the nature of friendship and the thickness of such friendship has not come on record. One of the witnesses has stated in a cursory manner that he had seen the appellant in the company of A1 on certain occasions. Insofar as other material/evidence, which is led against the appellant and can become the basis of his conviction is concerned, we find that there are three circumstances which weighed with the Trial Court to convict the appellant. These are: 1. Recovery of blood stained clothes of the appellant from his house on his disclosure statement.2. Recovery of laptop belonging to the sister (PW 23) of the deceased Anusha Sarkar from the house of the appellant with cushion cover.3. Finger prints of the appellant on the cello tape which was found in the house of the deceased. 7. As far as recovery of blood stained clothes is concerned, two public witnesses are examined who, purportedly, were the witnesses to the seizure list of wearing apparels of the appellant. These are PW-12 and PW13. According to their deposition, they saw the policemen along with the accused person going to the house of the appellant and they also joined the police party. It is how they became the witnesses and were associated with the recovery. For the sake of argument, we are presuming that they were present at the time when the appellant brought blood stained clothes from his house and gave the same to the police. What is material is the reliance on these blood stained clothes for the culpability of the appellant herein. As per the prosecution, the blood group on these blood stained clothes matched with the blood on the bed sheet on which the body of one of the deceased person is found. The record reveals that though blood of both the deceased persons was drawn and sent for examination, it is not known as to what was the report thereupon and what was the blood group of the deceased persons. No such blood report has been produced. So much so, blood group of the accused persons was also not ascertained. Even if we presume that the blood on the bed sheet was that of the deceased, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the same blood group as of the accused appellant thereof. Therefore, mere matching of the blood group on the blood stained clothes, which was even on the bed sheet, would not lead to the conclusion that it is the appellant who had committed the crime. Same reasoning goes with the recovery of laptop as well. Merely because laptop belonging to the sister of the deceased Anusha Sarkar is not indicative that the appellant is responsible for the commission of the crime. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only so much of recovery, as a result of the disclosure statement, which directly pertains to the commission of crime is relevant. Otherwise, such an evidence is barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Recovery of laptop does not have any bearing. It is neither the weapon of crime nor it has any cause of connection with the commission of crime. The law on this aspect is succinctly said in the case "Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 872 in the following manner: "5. Under Section 25 of the Evidence Act no confession made by an accused to a police officer can be admitted in evidence against him. An exception to this is however provided by Section 26 which makes a confessional statement made before a Magistrate admissible in evidence against an accused notwithstanding the fact that he was in the custody of the police when he made the incriminating statement. Section 27 is a proviso to Section 26 and makes admissible so much of the statement of the accused which leads to the discovery of a fact deposed to by him and connected with the crime, irrespective of the question whether it is confessional or otherwise. The essential ingredient of the section is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Secondly, only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence." 8. Third ingredient does not seem to have been satisfied.9. As far as finger prints on the cello tape are concerned, the report is that print marked D on cello tape matched with specimen of the appellant and prints marked A to C were unfit for comparison and print B did not match with either of the accused.10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that only on print mark D, the finger prints were found to be matching with the specimen of the appellant. However, what is significant is that in the court it was found that print D was missing on the cello tape roll. In view thereof, print D could not be relied upon. Insofar as print marks A to C are concerned, the report of the expert is that they were unfit for comparison. Therefore, this circumstance has also not been satisfactorily proved. In the absence of any motive on the part of the appellant, weak linkage of his alleged friendship with A1 and hardly any circumstance clinching to point accusing finger on the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant should have been given the benefit of doubt as his culpability has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. It is clear from the aforesaid that there is no eye witness to the crime and the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. It also becomes clear that no direct motive is attributed to the appellant herein. As per the prosecution, the motive to commit the crime was with A1 who could not digest the stand of Anusha Sarkars mother because of which Anusha Sarkar parted the company of A1. We need not to discuss the evidence that was led and proved against A1 since his special leave petition has already been dismissed. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the only reason given is that he was a friend of A1 and that is why he joined A1 in commission of the said crime. We may state at the outset that after examining the testimonies of the witnesses on this particular aspect, we find that it is not very strong inasmuch as the nature of friendship and the thickness of such friendship has not come on record. One of the witnesses has stated in a cursory manner that he had seen the appellant in the company of A1 on certainas other material/evidence, which is led against the appellant and can become the basis of his conviction is concerned, we find that there are three circumstances which weighed with the Trial Court to convict the appellant.As far as recovery of blood stained clothes is concerned, two public witnesses are examined who, purportedly, were the witnesses to the seizure list of wearing apparels of the appellant. These areand PW13. According to their deposition, they saw the policemen along with the accused person going to the house of the appellant and they also joined the police party. It is how they became the witnesses and were associated with the recovery. For the sake of argument, we are presuming that they were present at the time when the appellant brought blood stained clothes from his house and gave the same to the police. What is material is the reliance on these blood stained clothes for the culpability of the appellant herein. As per the prosecution, the blood group on these blood stained clothes matched with the blood on the bed sheet on which the body of one of the deceased person is found. The record reveals that though blood of both the deceased persons was drawn and sent for examination, it is not known as to what was the report thereupon and what was the blood group of the deceased persons. No such blood report has been produced. So much so, blood group of the accused persons was also not ascertained. Even if we presume that the blood on the bed sheet was that of the deceased, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the same blood group as of the accused appellant thereof. Therefore, mere matching of the blood group on the blood stained clothes, which was even on the bed sheet, would not lead to the conclusion that it is the appellant who had committed the crime. Same reasoning goes with the recovery of laptop as well. Merely because laptop belonging to the sister of the deceased Anusha Sarkar is not indicative that the appellant is responsible for the commission of the crime.Third ingredient does not seem to have been satisfied.9. As far as finger prints on the cello tape are concerned, the report is that print marked D on cello tape matched with specimen of the appellant and prints marked A to C were unfit for comparison and print B did not match with either of the accused.10. From the aforesaid, it is clear that only on print mark D, the finger prints were found to be matching with the specimen of the appellant. However, what is significant is that in the court it was found that print D was missing on the cello tape roll. In view thereof, print D could not be relied upon. Insofar as print marks A to C are concerned, the report of the expert is that they were unfit for comparison. Therefore, this circumstance has also not been satisfactorily proved. In the absence of any motive on the part of the appellant, weak linkage of his alleged friendship with A1 and hardly any circumstance clinching to point accusing finger on the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant should have been given the benefit of doubt as his culpability has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.