The Gujarat High Court has affirmed that the testimony of relatives of the deceased is not inherently unreliable, and that the recovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is admissible to establish discovery, even if the accused’s subsequent confession of use is inadmissible. This judgment reinforces foundational principles in criminal evidence law and clarifies the limits of judicial skepticism toward familial witnesses.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Tarjubhai Vehlabhai Naika, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his daughter-in-law, who was also the wife of his son, Jitubhai Tarjubhai Naika. The prosecution alleged that on 16.06.2014, at approximately 9:30 a.m., the appellant confronted the deceased at their home in Chhotaudepur, Gujarat, demanding why she refused to maintain a relationship with him. Upon her rejection, he became enraged, inflicted multiple knife wounds on her chest, face, and left hand, and fled the scene. The deceased died at the doorstep of the house.
Key Facts
- The deceased was the wife of PW No.9, Jitubhai Tarjubhai Naika, who is the appellant’s son.
- PW No.10, Rajeshbhai Jitubhai Nayka, and PW No.11, Arjunbhai Jitubhai Nayka, are the deceased’s sons and the appellant’s grandsons.
- The appellant had previously attempted to establish an illicit relationship with the deceased, which led to a prior dispute resolved by the village Panchayat.
- The incident occurred while the complainant and his two sons were working in a nearby vada (a type of food stall).
- The deceased was found lying injured at the doorstep after screaming for help.
- The appellant fled the scene on a motorcycle, armed with the knife.
- The knife used in the crime was recovered from the appellant’s residence on the basis of information provided by him during police custody.
- The postmortem report (Exh.10) recorded eight external injuries, including deep stab wounds to the chest and neck, with the cause of death being hemorrhagic shock.
- The FIR (CR No.45 of 2014) was registered at Changodar Police Station on 16.06.2014.
- The charge sheet was filed on 18.08.2014 before the JMFC, which committed the case to the Sessions Court due to jurisdictional limits.
- The trial concluded on 05.05.2016, with the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000, with three months’ simple imprisonment in default.
Procedural History
- 16.06.2014: Incident occurred at approximately 9:30 a.m.
- 16.06.2014: FIR CR No.45 of 2014 registered at Changodar Police Station.
- 18.08.2014: Charge sheet filed before JMFC.
- 20.09.2014: Case committed to Sessions Court.
- 05.05.2016: Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara.
- 05.05.2016: Sentence imposed: life imprisonment + Rs.5,000 fine + 3 months SI in default.
- 16.04.2026: Appeal heard and dismissed by the Gujarat High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- Argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- Contended that PWs 9, 10, and 11 were biased as they were close relatives of the deceased.
- Claimed that the witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR, casting doubt on their credibility.
- Asserted that the recovery of the weapon was unreliable because the accused fled immediately and could not have returned to the house to conceal the weapon.
- Argued that the Sessions Court erred in relying on the relationship motive without independent corroboration.
For the Respondent
- Maintained that the prosecution evidence was consistent, credible, and corroborated by medical and scientific evidence.
- Emphasized that the presence of the witnesses at the scene was natural given their familial ties.
- Stated that the recovery of the knife under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was legally valid and established the link between the accused and the weapon.
- Highlighted that the accused’s conduct - fleeing the scene - was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and tainted by bias. He requested acquittal or, in the alternative, reduction of sentence.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the testimony of close relatives of the deceased can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship, and (2) Whether the recovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be relied upon to establish the accused’s connection to the crime, even if the accused’s statement about its use is inadmissible.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the prosecution’s case was built on the testimony of three witnesses who were direct family members of the deceased - her husband and two sons. He argued that such testimony is inherently suspect and must be corroborated by independent evidence. He further submitted that the absence of these witnesses in the FIR rendered their accounts suspect, and that the recovery of the knife could not be trusted because the accused had fled immediately after the crime and could not have returned to the house to conceal the weapon. He relied on general principles of criminal law requiring strict proof beyond reasonable doubt and challenged the Sessions Court’s reliance on motive without independent corroboration.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel countered that the familial relationship of witnesses does not automatically invalidate their testimony. She emphasized that the witnesses were present at the scene during the incident and their accounts were consistent with each other and with the medical evidence. She argued that the recovery of the knife under Section 27 was legally valid, as the information led to the discovery of a tangible object, and that the accused’s flight from the scene was relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. She maintained that the Sessions Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the appeal was an attempt to re-appreciate facts, which is impermissible in a second appeal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous re-appreciation of the evidence and rejected the appellant’s core contentions. It held that the mere fact that witnesses are relatives of the deceased does not render their testimony unreliable. The Court cited M. Nageswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251), where the Supreme Court held that the relationship of witnesses to the deceased cannot be the sole basis for rejecting their evidence. The Court observed that the presence of the complainant and his sons at the scene was natural, given their familial ties, and their consistent accounts of the incident - particularly the accused’s confrontation, the infliction of wounds, and the subsequent flight - were credible.
"Merely because the witnesses were the relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded solely on the aforesaid ground."
Regarding the recovery of the knife, the Court relied on Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 980), which clarified that Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact - such as a weapon - but not the part of the statement that constitutes a confession of guilt. The Court held that the recovery of the knife from the appellant’s residence, based on his information during custody, was legally valid and established a direct link between the accused and the murder weapon. The Court noted that the prosecution did not rely on the accused’s statement that he used the knife to kill the deceased; it relied only on the fact of discovery.
"Only so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible, and the rest of the information stands excluded."
The Court further held that the accused’s conduct - fleeing the scene immediately after the crime - was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as it indicated consciousness of guilt. The Court found no material contradiction in the prosecution’s evidence and noted that the defence witnesses had failed to offer any credible alternative narrative.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt: motive (rejected relationship), opportunity (presence at the scene), act (multiple stab wounds), and aftermath (flight and recovery of weapon). The Sessions Court’s findings were therefore upheld.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were confirmed. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000, with three months’ simple imprisonment in default of payment. The Court directed that the records be remitted to the trial court forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Relative Witnesses’ Testimony Is Not Automatically Discredited
- Practitioners must argue that familial relationship alone cannot be grounds for rejecting witness testimony.
- Courts must evaluate the consistency, corroboration, and plausibility of such testimony, not its source.
- In murder cases involving close family members, the burden shifts to the defence to show fabrication, not to the prosecution to prove absence of bias.
Section 27 Recovery Is a Powerful Tool - But Limited in Scope
- Recovery of a weapon or object under Section 27 is admissible even if the accused’s statement about its use is inadmissible.
- Defence counsel must challenge the chain of custody and timing of recovery, not the mere fact of discovery.
- Prosecutors must ensure that the panchnama clearly links the recovered item to the information provided by the accused, without including confessional language.
Flight from Scene Is Relevant Conduct
- Evidence of an accused fleeing the crime scene is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as conduct indicative of guilt.
- This principle applies even in cases where the accused claims innocence and alleges a false case.
- Defence arguments that flight was due to fear or panic must be supported by independent evidence, not mere assertion.
