Supreme Court: Recovery Of A Weapon From An Open Place Accessible To All Not Reliable U/ S of 27 Evidence Act

27.1. This Court has, in various judgments, clarified this position. Illustratively, in Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/1259/2021 : (2021) 13 SCC 716 it was observed:

One of the alleged recoveries is from the room where deceased Asgari used to sleep. The other two recoveries are from open field, just behind the house of deceased Shaukeen Khan i.e. the place of incident. It could thus be seen that the recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could be placed on such recoveries.

(Emphasis supplied)

 27.2. Also, in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. MANU/SC/0211/2023 : (2023) 6 SCC 605 the Court held:

20. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement of the Accused as required Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law. However, this circumstance which, in our view, could not have been used, has been employed by the High Court to seek corroboration to the extra- judicial confession.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2011

Decided On: 06.11.2023

Manjunath and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1212/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, the court can convict or acquit accused on the testimony of single witness?

The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution.

Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.

Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely :

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

15. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion.

It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.

There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.

Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 24 and 25 of 1957

Decided On: 12.04.1957

Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B. Jagannadhadas, B.P. Sinha and P.B. Gajendragadkar, JJ.

Author: B.P. Sinha, J.

Citation: AIR 1957 SC 614,MANU/SC/0039/1957

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, Session Judge should not rely on CA report or DNA report without examining scientific experts?

 

The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the limits of judicial reliance on forensic reports in criminal trials. In State of Maharashtra v. Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi & Ors., the Court made it clear that where Chemical Analyser reports and DNA reports are relied upon as incriminating material, the trial court cannot treat them as self-proving documents and proceed to convict without examining the scientific experts concerned.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Failure To Examine Forensic Experts Whose CA reports / DNA reports Are Relied Upon Vitiates Trial

 We find from the record that, amongst other circumstances, the

Sessions Court, in the present case, did rely upon the CA reports at

exhibit-166 (collectively) to hold against the appellants i.e. the accused persons. This is evident from paragraph 143 onwards of the impugned judgement and order of the Sessions Court. We find that the Sessions Court committed a grave error while observing in paragraph 142 of the impugned judgement and order that since the accused did not move any requisition for examining the chemical analysers for any specific cause, the reports of the chemical analysers at exhibit-166 (collectively) were being directly admitted in evidence without examining the chemical analysers. Such a course of action was clearly not open for the Sessions Court, for the reason that the Supreme Court has laid down that such witnesses ought to be court witnesses even if the prosecution fails in its duty to summon such crucial witnesses, if at all the CA reports / DNA reports are to be relied by the prosecution. We are of the opinion that the impugned judgement and order to that extent is vitiated and the trial itself stood vitiated to that extent. {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONFIRMATION CASE NO.3 OF 2024

State of Maharashtra  Vs. Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi,

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 10, 2026

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11660-DB

ORDER : (Per Justice Manish Pitale)

Print Page