Continuous Evaluation III

IN THE COURSE OF

LAW OF EVIDENCE

2BL542

CASE ANALYSIS SUBMISSION

ON

Bodh Raj @ Bodha v. State of Jammu &

Kashmir,

(2002) 7 S.C.C. 334 (India).

GUIDED BY: SUBMITTED BY:

 Dr. Shivani Mehta

 Dhyey G. Jani
(Assistant Professor) 22BBL075
B.Com L.L.B
INTRODUCTION
 The pertinent aspects of circumstantial evidence are addressed in the case of Bodh Raj
& Ors v. State of Jammu & Kashmir. Any indirect evidence for the said assertion is
circumstantial evidence according to Stephen Leacock, and that's what people are
killed for. The best way to describe circumstantial evidence is as the possibility that a
specific conclusion can be drawn from all of the unrelated data when they are
examined together.
Furthermore, even if circumstantial evidence is not used as primary evidence, it may
be helpful in guiding future investigations. Both criminal and civil cases may benefit
from the use of circumstantial evidence; in the former, it can help establish the
accused's guilt or innocence, while in the latter, it can help demonstrate or deny the
parties' culpability.
 A proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which say that an
accused person's statement while in police custody is a confession and cannot be used
as evidence, is contained in clause 27 of the Act. Therefore, Section 27 of the IEA,
1872, was designed to permit the use of evidence that the accused submitted while in
police custody if it led to the discovery of new facts in the case and could be used in
court.
FACTS

 The accused in the Bodhraj v. State of Jammu Kashmir case were charged with
several serious offenses by the prosecution during a criminal trial. Since the deceased
was found dead and the accused was last seen with the deceased, it was concluded
that the accused was the only person who could have committed the crime. Beyond
merely being observed together, the prosecution needed to prove a series of actions
linking the accused to the crime in order to obtain a conviction. Of the two, Bechan
Ram was found not guilty by the Trial Court of murder and other connected offenses,
but Rambrash (Bodh Raj) was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
 Bechan Ram was found not guilty, whereas Rambrash (BodhRaj) was sentenced to
life in prison by the Trial Court for murder and related charges. The prosecution
claims that after visiting the deceased's home and urging him to travel to Ambikapur,
Rambraksh followed him to the field where he vanished.
  Following the discovery of the deceased's remains, authorities investigated the crime
scene and retrieved many items. In order to prove the accused's guilt, the prosecution
used circumstantial evidence, highlighting the necessity of a convincing line of
evidence that dispels any reasonable doubt about the accused's involvement in the
crime.
 Based on this information, it has been determined that both defendants, Ravinder
Kumar and Ashok Kumar, hired the attackers to kill Swaran Singh since they brought
the land. Additionally, during the attackers' assault, the accused Rajesh Kumar and
Subash Kumar suffered injuries while attempting to save the deceased's life. The
additional suspects in this case were identified by the prosecution witnesses while
firearms were being retrieved. The prosecution witness identified the accused as Bodh
Raj.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Was the accused's guilt established by the finding of a murder weapon as per
the information they provided while the accused was in custody?
2. Is Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 sufficient to carry out or uphold a
conviction?
3. What kinds of circumstantial evidence are used to support a conviction?
ARGUMENTS
1. Prosecution’s Arguments
 By drawing conclusions from certain circumstances, such as the fact that only the
accused, Ravinder Kumar, and Ashok Kumar are aware of the location of the land,
and that they drove a car that was not registered in their names on the way there, the
prosecution has claimed that there was a plot to kill Swaran Singh. Nevertheless, the
advocate general who testified before the trial court claimed that no concrete proof of
a plot to assassinate Swaran Singh was offered.
 Additionally, the prosecution's learned counsel stated that the accused Ashok Kumar
and Ravinder Kumar are powerful figures in society who have the ability to
manipulate the evidence. As a result, the witnesses were terrified of them. He
recommended evaluating the facts using the pragmatic approach, which looks at the
evidence in a practical rather than theoretical manner.
2. Defense Arguments
 According to the defense lawyer, there was not a plot behind Swaran Singh's murder.
Additionally, Kapur Chand, the prosecution's witness, told the police that no
 conspiracy analysis was conducted. Additionally, the person investigating in the
present investigation has indicated that there is evidence that the accused were
connected to this crime, even if there is not any concrete proof of a conspiracy.
SUBORDINATE COURT JUDGEMENTS
1. Trial Court Judgement
On May 15, 2001, during a property dispute, Bodh Raj purposefully injured victim
Ramesh Kumar with a sharp object, according to Sessions Judge in Srinagar.
Eyewitness accounts and medical evidence support the prosecution's story against the
accused. In accordance with Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC OF J&K),
Bodh Raj was convicted guilty and given a five-year prison term along with a Rs.
25,000 fine.
2. High Court Judgement
Citing insufficient evidence and severe punishments, the Srinagar-based Jammu &
Kashmir High Court finds various errors in the appellant's conviction and sentencing
imposed by Sessions Court. The Court examined the case and concluded that the trial
court's decision was erroneous and reversed the conviction. Due to the appellant's
absence of a past criminal record and mitigating circumstances, the sentence is
lowered to three years of rigorous imprisonment while the fine stays the same.
Because the punishment has changed, the appeal was partially allowed.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
 In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the court held that
the circumstances can serve as the basis for the accused's conviction if a particular
piece of evidence is admitted. The burden of demonstrating that the circumstances are
consistent with the facts rests with the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the
chain is complete and free of errors.
 Furthermore, if the connection between the accused and the offense has been proven,
no proof is required. The accused shall be held accountable for the death of the person
with whom he was last seen, according to the last seen doctrine.
 However, it is not always possible to assume that the accused is guilty of the offense
based on the events leading up to the last seen concept. Additionally, it is essential to
consider other situations where it might be demonstrated that additional events have
occurred. A person's death and the accused's should occur close together since this
removes any doubt about whether the deceased had any companions.
 The court further held that the circumstances' level of admissible information should
be determined by the facts of the case. It also noted that the accused's statement about
where he concealed the articles while in police custody could not be considered
information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
 Furthermore, the state's appeal, which was dismissed by the trial and high courts, has
been deemed irrelevant. Additionally, neither court found any grounds for convicting
them of the crime, so the state's appeal was denied.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

 Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act2 as well as circumstantial
evidence are the main topics of the Bodhraj v. Jammu and Kashmir case. Instead of
using direct proof, circumstantial evidence uses inference to support a claim on a fact
or event. Instead of directly proving a fact, this kind of evidence implies its existence
based on pertinent circumstances.
 Indirect testimony known as circumstantial evidence necessitates that the jury or court
make logical inferences from the evidence that is presented. Evidence that suggests
the presence of an event or truth without being confirmed or refuted directly. The
Indian Evidence Act of 1872's Section 25 addresses admissions made by those who
are being accused. Confessional statements must meet certain criteria in order to be
accepted as evidence in the courts of Law,
 In order to avoid injustices, Section 25 attempts to prohibit coerced or involuntary
confessions. The strategy seeks to achieve a balance between gathering evidence and
defending the accused's fundamental rights to due process and immunity from
incrimination.
Unless made in front of a magistrate, confessions made while in police custody are
admissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to this law,
a confession made by an accused person in police custody cannot be used as evidence
unless it is made right away in front of a magistrate.
 The purpose of this clause is to stop police officers from using coercion to get false
confessions. This regulation does have several exceptions. If a confession is made
right in front of a court or while being detained by a police officer and supported by
further evidence.
 The purpose of Section 26 is to safeguard the rights of the accused and guarantee that
confessions are given voluntarily and free from undue pressure or interference. The
goal is to protect the right to due process and a fair trial while stopping authorities
from using unethical tactics to coerce confessions. The admissibility of information
obtained from an accused person while they are in custody that reveals pertinent facts
or evidence is covered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It outlines
the conditions that must be fulfilled for such information to be admitted into evidence
in court.
 For someone to be eligible for admission under Section 27, they must fulfill the
following requirements:
1. The accused must be in custody of police at the time of the statement.
2. Claims ought to be backed up by pertinent data or facts.
The fact or evidence in support should be discovered as a result of the accused's
statement.
3. The person who made the discovery is required to testify at trial regarding the
circumstances that led to the discovery.
 The pertinent portion of the accused's statement that has an immediate connection to
the finding may be admitted as evidence if these requirements are satisfied. The part
of the statement that resulted in the discovery is the only admissible evidence. Section
27 seeks to strike a balance between safeguarding the accused's right against self-
incrimination and the necessity of gathering evidence.
 In this case, the Indian Supreme Court established guidelines for the "last seen
theory": The accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. It's crucial to go through all of the evidence presented by prosecution,
and not just selected passages, though. The prosecution is assumed to be accountable
for the deceased's death if they can show that the deceased was last seen alive with the
accused. Because it is a rebuttable presumption, the accused has the opportunity to
prove their innocence or cast doubt on their role in the crime.
 In the Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka case, the most recent theory was put forth.
Rather than being based on concrete evidence of guilt, the "last seen theory" assumes
that guilt is based on circumstantial evidence. Each case's unique facts and
circumstances will determine the presumption's strength, and the court must weigh all
relevant material before rendering a decision.
  The "last seen theory" states that the onus of proof switches upon the accused to rebut
the standard presumption if the prosecution can show that the deceased was last seen
with them. By disputing or raising doubts about their role in the claimed offense,
accused individuals may contest this presumption. By establishing criteria for the
application of the "last seen theory" in cases of disappearance or attack while in
custody, this ruling shields the accused from burdensome evidence.
CONCLUSION
 The ability to gather circumstantial evidence to support the prosecution and establish
the accused's guilt of the crime has improved in recent years. We also know that
eyewitnesses to criminal offenses can be important pieces of evidence and are
typically taken into consideration, but occasionally they may be questioned due to
human mistake or malicious intent on the part of the party. By connecting the events
and demonstrating the accused's guilt, circumstantial evidence, on the other hand,
tests direct evidence. The best way to describe circumstantial evidence is as evidence
that has been corroborated.
REFERENCES

1. Bodh Raj @ Bodha v. State of Jammu Kashmir,(2002) 7 S.C.C. 334 (India).

2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12183-bodh-raj-vs-state-of-jammu-
kashmir-2002.html#google_vignette