Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused: Lack of Complete Circumstantial Evidence and Unproven Body Recovery Leads to Acquittal. The SC ruled discovery must support confession u/s 27 IEA and prosecution failed to establish a direct connection, reinforcing the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Headline
The SC ruled discovery must support confession u/s 27 IEA of India and acquits the accused of murder, stating incomplete circumstantial evidence and failure to prove body recovery U/S 27 of Indian Evidence Act (U/S 23 of BSA), stressing on the requirement for guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The Supreme Court of India acquitted a accused of murder, stating that there was failure from the prosecution side to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Bench said that the discovery of the body of the deceased was not conclusively connected to the accused U/S 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Key Facts
- Case Name: MD. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan vs. State of Assam,
- Judges Name: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- The accused was convicted depending upon circumstantial evidence, including being last seen with the victim and the recovery of the body.
- The Supreme Court of India discovered inconsistencies in the statements of the witness and ruled that the prosecution failed to prove each circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt.
Legal Insights
- The Supreme Court stressed that U/S 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only information leading directly to discovery is admissible in the court.
- Since the recovery of the body was not conclusively connected to the accused, the circumstantial evidence remained incomplete, which led to acquittal.
Impact
This ruling of the Supreme Court strengthens the principle that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken consistent chain to justify a conviction of an accused .
Why It Matters
The judgment upholds the presumption of innocence, so that no accused is convicted unless guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Source:
