Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Manmohan, JJ.
Raja Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Chattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14411 of 2024)
Decided On : 07-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1) and 238] – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – Entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence as there is neither any eye-witness nor any judicially admissible confession – Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must show that act has been done by Appellant-accused within all human probability – To prove charges, prosecution has laid emphasis on recovery of weapon of assault and gold chains belonging to deceased, on the basis of disclosure statement given by Appellant-accused while in custody – Testimonies of witnesses raises serious doubts regarding version of prosecution with respect to alleged disclosure made by Appellant-accused herein and recoveries pursuant to such alleged disclosure – There are glaring inconsistencies with respect to manner in which gold chains were recovered from house of Appellant-accused and presence of Appellant-accused at the time of recovery is itself doubtful – Prosecution has failed to prove chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of accused, beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant-accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgments and conviction of Appellant-accused under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC set aside. (Paras 16, 17, 22, 25, 32 and 33)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25, 26 and 27 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Sections 23(1) and 23(2)] – Extra-Judicial confession and disclosure statement – Sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act stipulate that confession made to a police officer is not admissible – However, Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 – Section 27 lifts the ban, though partially, to admissibility of confessions – Removal of ban is not of such an extent so as to absolutely undo object of Section 26 – As such, statement whether confessional or not is allowed to be given in evidence but that portion only which distinctly relates to discovery of fact is admissible – Discovery of a fact includes object found, place from which it is produced and knowledge of Appellant-accused as to its existence. (Paras 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 4th July, 2023 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal, whereby appeal filed by Appellant-accused was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 12th August, 2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.42/2014 by third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh convicting and sentencing the Appellant-accused was affirmed. Appellant-accused has been convicted for committing offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for committing the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.200/- for committing offence under Section 201 of IPC along with default stipulations.
Findings of Court:
Courts below were not justified in disregarding glaring inconsistencies with respect to recoveries made by police pursuant to alleged disclosure made by Appellant-accused. Consequently, manner of recovery and preparation of seizure memos raises grave doubts about version of disclosure and recovery put forth by prosecution.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The appeal challenges the High Court's affirmation of the Trial Court's conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for murder and destruction of evidence, sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment and 5 years RI respectively. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Prosecution case: Deceased went missing on 29.11.2013 after leaving home; body found floating in quarry pond on 01.12.2013; homicidal death due to head injury from sharp-edged and blunt weapons; accused borrowed money from deceased, had dispute, took him in auto with co-accused (acquitted), assaulted with iron pipe, gandasa, stone, disposed body in pond after removing pant and tying rope. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Key prosecution evidence: Last seen with accused (PW-21, PW-23); disclosure statement under S.27 Evidence Act leading to recovery of blood-stained stone and gandasa from Kachna pond, and deceased's two gold chains from accused's house rooftop; FSL confirmed human blood on stone. (!) (!)
No eyewitness; no judicially admissible confession; case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. (!) (!)
In circumstantial evidence cases, chain of circumstances must be complete and fully established; consistent only with accused's guilt; conclusive in nature; exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence; show act done by accused in all human probability. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Sections 25-26 Evidence Act bar confessions to police officers; S.27 exception allows only portion of statement (confessional or not) distinctly relating to discovery of fact, including object found, place of production, and accused's knowledge of its existence. (!) (!)
Essentials of S.27 admissibility: Accused's information must lead directly to fact discovery; only distinctly connected portion admissible; discovery must relate to the offence. (!) (!) (!)
Disclosure memo (Ex.P-23) by IO in presence of PW-22 and another (not examined); led to alleged recoveries vide seizure memos (Ex.P-25, P-29 etc.). (!) (!) (!)
Serious doubts on disclosures/recoveries: PW-22 signed multiple documents (incl. disclosure memo) at police station on police instruction without reading/understanding; no signatures at recovery spots; seizure memos prepared at PS. (!) (!) (!)
Stone/gandasa recovery: PW-22, PW-26 confirm diver recovered on police instructions from police-indicated spot in Kachna pond; no mention of accused pointing out or presence. (!) (!)
Gold chains recovery inconsistencies: Disclosure mentions red wrapper behind green container on terrace; memo (Ex.P-29) says green blanket on roof; PW-22 says policeman climbed roof from outside, then witnesses; IO says he didn't go to roof, accused/witnesses did; no confirmation of accused's presence or leading recovery. (!) (!) (!)
TIP of gold chains unreliable: Contradictions - PW-20 denies PW-2 identified them among similar chains; PW-6/PW-7 say only two chains shown; no prior distinguishing marks disclosed by PW-2; chains handed to PW-2 day before TIP. (!) (!)
Last seen circumstance doubtful: PW-23's version uncorroborated by PW-2, PW-3, PW-5; variances in place/time. (!) (!)
Motive unproved: No evidence of borrowed amount or enmity beyond vague/uncorroborated witness statements. (!)
Courts below erred in ignoring inconsistencies in recoveries, disclosure, seizure memos; prosecution failed to prove complete chain beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!)
Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt; convictions under Sections 302/201 IPC set aside; accused to be released forthwith unless required in other case. (!)
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J.
1. Present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 4 th July, 2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. CRA/855/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the Appellant-accused was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 12th August, 2014 passed in Sessions Trial No.42/2014 by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) convicting and sentencing the Appellant-accused was affirmed. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant-accused has been convicted for committing offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) for committing the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (five) years with fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) for committing the offence under Section 201 of IPC along with default stipulations.
FACTS
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
2.1 The case of the prosecution is that Neeraj Yadav (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) left his house on 29th November, 2013 but did not return home and a Missing Report was lodged by the father of the deceased, Premlal Yadav (PW-5), on 30th November, 2013. Chandrashekhar Verma (PW-1) informed the police on 1st December, 2013 that a dead body had been found floating in the pond of a stone quarry at Village Dondekala Matia and upon receiving the information, police personnel of P.S Vidhan Sabha reached the spot. Thereafter, a MERG Intimation being MERG No. 62/2013 (Ex. P-17) was registered on 2nd December, 2013 and the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination, and it was concluded that the death was homicidal in nature. Subsequently, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) dated 3rd December, 2013 bearing no. 228/2013 was registered at P.S. Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur. The dead body of the deceased was identified by Balram Yadav (PW-21) who was the cousin brother of the deceased.
2.2 During the course of the investigation, it was found that the Appellant- accused had borrowed money from the deceased and a dispute had arisen between them with respect to refund of the borrowed amount.
2.3 It is the case of prosecution that the Appellant-accused along with co- accused Tarachand Verma (who has been acquitted by the Trial Court) had taken the deceased on the intervening day in an auto to the place of incident and assaulted the deceased with an iron pipe and battleaxe (Gandasa) and thereby committed his murder and with intent to cause disappearance of evidence smashed his head with stone and after removing his full pant tied a rope around his waist and thrown the body in the water of quarry no. 1.
2.4 The dead body of the deceased was sent for Post-Mortem Examination which was conducted by Dr. Nitin Shaymrao Barmate (PW-10) and as per the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P-13), the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and some of the injuries were as a result of a hard and blunt impact. It was also stated that the cause of death was “Head Injury” and the death was homicidal in nature.
2.5 A Memorandum of Statement (Ex. P-23) of the Appellant-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (herein referred to as “Evidence Act”) was recorded which led to the discovery and seizure of the iron blade (Gandasa) and a stone covered in blood from Kachna Pond. Further, recovery and seizure of two gold chains of the deceased was also made from the rooftop of the house of the Appellant-accused. The seized articles i.e. blood-stained soil, mobile cover, iron pellet and stones were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as “FSL”) and its report (Ex. P-39) stated that the presence of human blood stain was found on the stone seized by the Investigating Agency.
2.6 The prosecution, to prove that
(1) Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must s....
Convictions under Section 302 of IPC require corroborative evidence, and in the absence of reliable evidence, guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Mere recovery based on disclosure statements is inadequate to establish guilt; additional evidence linking recovered items to the crime is necessary.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
(1) Appeal by Special Leave – If finding of guilt is returned without properly evaluating and testing evidence by applying requisite legal principles, it can always be corrected by Supreme Court in e....
Circumstantial evidence murder conviction cannot rest on solitary unproven recovery of stolen property without complete chain; accused's probable explanation on preponderance of probability entitles ....
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence is not sustainable without a complete chain of evidence, and undue delay in handling forensic samples raises integrity concerns.
Point of Law : There is no evidence on record as to on what basis the Investigating Officer approached PW2 and PW3 to ascertain how the goats have been transported. There is also nothing on record to....
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
