The Supreme Court has held that recovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, without reliable supporting evidence, cannot by itself sustain a criminal conviction. Restoring the acquittal of six persons in a 1988 murder case, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found that the prosecution's case suffered from unreliable eyewitness testimony, doubtful dying declarations and other evidentiary gaps. Holding that these deficiencies created reasonable doubt, the Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order and restored the trial court's acquittal.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the alleged murder of one Qavi on February 14, 1988. The trial court had acquitted all the accused after finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The deceased's brother challenged the acquittal before the Bombay High Court through a criminal revision.
The High Court initially interfered with the acquittal, but that order was later set aside by the Supreme Court because the accused had not been given an opportunity to be heard. After the matter was remanded, the High Court again directed the trial court to reconsider certain parts of the evidence, particularly the eyewitness testimonies, recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the chemical analysis report. The accused then approached the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court first examined whether the High Court ought to have entertained the criminal revision after the law had been amended to provide victims with a statutory right of appeal against acquittal. The Bench noted that although the legal issue had become academic in the present case because the revision had been filed before the amendment, the High Court possessed the power to convert a revision into an appeal where appropriate.
Turning to the evidence, the Court found that the alleged motive itself appeared doubtful. The prosecution claimed that the deceased had quarrelled with one of the accused over a dispute relating to whitewashing a house. However, the evidence showed that the deceased was engaged in selling garments and not in whitewashing work, weakening the prosecution's version.
The Bench also found the eyewitness testimonies unreliable. It observed that the witnesses did not consistently support each other's presence at the scene and their conduct after the incident appeared unnatural. Some claimed to have witnessed the attack but neither took the injured to the hospital nor informed the police despite the police station being nearby. The Court agreed with the trial court that these circumstances raised doubts about their credibility.
On the alleged dying declarations, the Court noted significant contradictions between the medical evidence and the statements of the prosecution witnesses. One doctor stated that the injured remained unconscious throughout, while another suggested he was conscious at a later stage. The Bench found it difficult to accept that the deceased could have made the detailed statements attributed to him in view of the severe internal injuries recorded in the post-mortem report.
“The dying declaration spoken of was not credible,” the Bench observed while agreeing with the trial court's assessment.
The Court further held that recovery of a weapon stained with human blood under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, by itself, was insufficient to establish guilt because the prosecution failed to connect the weapon conclusively with the alleged offence.
“The only evidence is the blood stains found on the weapon... which by itself cannot lead to a finding of guilt without other circumstances,” the Bench observed.
Supreme Court's Decision
After independently reappreciating the evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had proved only that a homicidal death had occurred. It had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were responsible.
The Bench emphasised that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and that courts should not overturn such findings merely because another view may also be possible.
"The murder went unavenged, but it is not for the courts to convict the accused on mere assumptions when the evidence led by the prosecution fails to satisfy the judicial mind," the Court said.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal, directed that the accused be released if they were in custody in connection with this case, and cancelled their bail bonds where applicable.
Case Details
Case Title: Khalil Pasha & Ors. v. Abdul Rasheed & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1115 of 2023)
Judge: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: July 28, 2026
