Relevancy of Material Objects recovered and Crime :-

 

Relevancy of Material Objects recovered and Crime :-

– Debapriya Pal Vs State of West Bengal]

Section 302 of IPC (2 counts) – circumstantial evidence – whether recovery under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is admissible into evidence is the question – discovery of facts u/s 27 of Evidence Act need to establish relationship of facts discovered with commission of the offence.

[Vasanthi & Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu] -

Section 302 Murder – Section 27 Indian Evidence Act – relevancy of material object recovered under section 27 of IEA with crime – held that the connection between the objects and the crime has not been established and therefore, the very disclosure statement allegedly given by A2 is inadmissible.

[Kattu Raja v. State of T.N] -

Section 27 of Evidence Act – Link between MO3 and Crime not established by any other evidence – recovery of M.O.3 is not a relevant fact – disclosure statement is inadmissible (para 12)

[SK. Yusuf. V. State of West Bengal]

Section 302 Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – weapon of crime – not sent- chemical analysis – extra judicial confession (Para 34) – relevancy of material object recovered and connecting the weapon with the crime – if there is no evidence connecting the weapon with the crime – the recovery is inadmissible.

[Muskeen alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan]

Section 27 Indian Evidence Act – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – prosecution failed to establish as to why none of the local persons were called to be the witnesses for recovery – the mere recovery of a weapon is not admissible U/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In fact, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between recovery of material object and its use in the commission of the Offence.