LAW FOR ALL

Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - mere Recovery of M.O. with out connection - confession before police not admissible - admissible portion cycle two knives - Apex court held that With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence and further held that It is settled position of law that suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused. In our opinion, it is not safe to record a finding of guilt of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2011 Sangili @ Sanganathan …Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu …Respondent = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41901