A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This analysis examines Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025, in which the Supreme Court reversed convictions under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, because the prosecution’s circumstantial case failed to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

The prosecution’s case relied primarily on

(i) a memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that allegedly led to recovery of a blood-stained stone and a gandasa from a pond, and

(ii) recovery of two gold chains from the rooftop of the appellant’s house.

The Court scrutinised the panch witnesses’ testimony, the manner and place of preparation of seizure memos, contradictions in the disclosure and recovery accounts, weaknesses in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the chains, and lack of reliable corroboration for the “last seen” circumstance. Applying the five principles for circumstantial evidence in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and related precedents, the Court held that the chain of evidence was incomplete and the Section 27 disclosures did not carry the requisite guarantee of truth.

Material inconsistencies panches signing at police station, diver (PW-26) stating police directed recovery, mismatched descriptions in seizure memos, and absence of distinguishing marks on chains created reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions.

Keywords: circumstantial evidence; Section 27; recovery & seizure; last seen; benefit of doubt.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from conviction for murder and destruction of evidence after the dead body of Neeraj Yadav was recovered from a pond and post-mortem concluded homicidal death. Investigation produced a Section 27 memorandum attributed to the appellant, which allegedly led to recovery of a blood-stained stone and a gandasa from Kachna/Kachna Pond and recovery of two gold chains from the appellant’s rooftop. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant while acquitting one co-accused; the High Court affirmed.

Before the Supreme Court the central question was whether circumstantial inferences drawn from recoveries and a Section 27 disclosure, coupled with doubtful “last seen” testimony, satisfied the well-known tests for criminal liability on circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasised that where guilt rests wholly on circumstances, the facts must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, of conclusive tendency, excluding every other hypothesis, and forming a complete chain leaving no reasonable ground for innocence principles distilled in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and applied repeatedly by this Court.

The record revealed competing narrations of how recoveries occurred, shaky panch evidence, discrepancies between the disclosure and seizure memos, ambiguous TIP procedures, and forensic confirmation limited to blood on a stone. On that foundation the Court re-examined admissibility and probative value of material derived from a custodial disclosure under Section 27 and whether subsequent events sufficiently confirmed the accused’s information.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Neeraj Yadav left home on 29.11.2013 and was reported missing; his body was found floating in a quarry pond and identified by relatives. Post-mortem (Ex. P-13) recorded homicidal head injury caused by sharp and blunt force. The appellant allegedly borrowed money from the deceased and had a dispute. Investigation allegedly produced a memorandum under Section 27 (Ex. P-23) wherein the appellant is said to have pointed out concealment of the weapon and chains: a blood-stained stone and a gandasa from Kachna Pond, and two gold chains hidden on the appellant’s house rooftop.

The FSL report (Ex. P-39) found human blood on the stone. Panch witnesses produced to support recovery included Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) and diver Bhuvan Dhimar (PW-26). TIP and identification proceedings for the chains involved Purnima Yadav (PW-2) and other witnesses, but discrepancies emerged: panches testified they signed documents at the police station without witnessing recoveries; diver admitted acting on police instruction and pointed searches; seizure memos described differing hiding places (red wrapper behind a green container vs. green blanket); TIP testimony conflicted over how many similar chains were shown and whether distinguishing marks were indicated; and the “last seen” evidence from PW-23 was not consistently corroborated by PW-2, PW-3 or PW-5. The trial convicted; High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court re-examined all recovery and panch evidence for sufficiency and reliability.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether recoveries allegedly made pursuant to a statement under Section 27 were proved in accordance with the requirements of law?
ii. Whether the Section 27 disclosure and ensuing recoveries, together with TIP and “last seen” evidence, formed a complete chain of circumstantial evidence excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence?
iii. Whether defects in seizure memos, panch testimony and identification proceedings vitiated the probative value of the discovered articles?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellant’s counsel argued that panch witnesses PW-22 and PW-26 did not witness recoveries; they signed documents at the police station on police instructions and did not read the contents; the diver recovered items at police direction not at the accused’s pointing out; seizure memos were prepared at the police station undermining sanctity of recoveries; the rooftop recovery was open to public access and could be fabricated; TIP of the chains was unreliable; there was no convincing proof of motive or amount borrowed; last-seen testimony was inconsistent and insufficient.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The State emphasised that the Section 27 memorandum led to recovery of the blood-stained stone and gandasa and that FSL confirmed human blood; the chains found on the rooftop belonged to the deceased and were identified in TIP; PW-23 and PW-21 supported last-seen testimony that the deceased travelled with the appellant on 29.11.2013; thus recoveries and identification, taken together, sustained the circumstantial case.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Court reiterated the five principles for circumstantial evidence from Sharad Sarda and surveyed authorities on Section 27 as a proviso to ss.25–26 of the Evidence Act (noting Delhi Administration v. Bal Krishan, Udai Bhan and Bodhraj). It set out the three essential ingredients of s.27: information must lead to discovery; only that portion distinctly connected to recovery is admissible; and the discovery must relate to the offence.

The Court then analysed panch testimony and seizure memos: PW-22 admitted signing many papers at the police station without reading contents and did not witness recoveries; PW-26 (diver) stated recoveries were made on police instructions and from places indicated by police. Seizure memos were prepared at the police station rather than at the spot, and descriptions in the disclosure did not match memos (red wrapper vs. green blanket).

TIP inconsistencies included denial by Anwar Hussain (PW-20) of the manner in which Purnima Yadav identified the chains and discordant testimony about number of chains placed. Forensic support was limited to blood on a stone; nothing linked the gandasa or chains conclusively to the appellant. The Court relied on precedents holding that recoveries become suspect where panches sign at police station (Varun Chaudhary, Mustkeem) and where the Section 27 information is not properly proved.

Because the prosecution’s key facts were not established in a manner excluding all reasonable alternative hypotheses, the circumstantial chain failed. Thus the conviction under ss.302 & 201 IPC could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt; the appeal was allowed and the conviction set aside.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive ratio is that where a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, recoveries said to result from a custodial disclosure under Section 27 must be proved with unimpeachable clarity: the exact information must be established, panch testimonies must confirm presence at the discovery and seizure memos must be contemporaneous and consistent with the disclosure.

If panch evidence shows documents were signed at the police station on police instruction or recoveries were effected on police direction without corroboration that the accused pointed out the place, the required chain is broken and conviction cannot stand. The Court emphasised that s.27 is a narrow exception and does not obliterate the protective effect of s.26.

b. OBITER DICTA

The judgment cautioned against mechanical reliance on FSL results or isolated recoveries: forensic confirmation of blood on an object strengthens a case only when the provenance of that object is reliably established. The Court noted that doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events under s.27 requires the exact information to be proved and cannot be substituted by police opinion or after-the-fact notes. It observed that TIPs must be conducted with safeguards and that open, publicly accessible locations for alleged concealment weaken the inference that the accused alone had exclusive knowledge.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Section 27 disclosures must be recorded, proved and corroborated: the exact words or substance that led to discovery ought to be established through witnesses who actually heard the information.
ii. Panch witnesses should witness the recovery at the spot; signing at police station without witnessing the act undermines sanctity.
iii. Seizure memos must be prepared contemporaneously at the place of recovery and should describe concealment consistently with the disclosure.
iv. TIP procedures must include clear demonstration of distinguishing marks and contemporaneous record of identification; if identical items are used, the record must show comparative placing.
v. Recoveries from open or public places must be examined cautiously and require additional corroboration linking accused with exclusive knowledge.
vi. Forensic reports strengthen but do not replace chain-proof—proven chain of custody is essential.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores strict safeguards when conviction rests on custodial disclosures and recoveries. The judgment reaffirms that s.27 is narrowly circumscribed: only that portion of custodial information which distinctly relates to discovery is admissible and must itself be proved. The Court applied established precedents to hold that panches signing documents at police station, diver statements of acting on police direction, contradictory seizure memos, and ambiguous TIPs cumulatively created reasonable doubt. The ruling strengthens procedural rigor in seizure and identification exercises and reiterates that forensic corroboration cannot cure fundamental lacunae in the provenance of recovered items.

Practically, investigators must ensure contemporaneous recovery memos, genuine and independent panch witnessing at spot, clear recording of the accused’s information, and robust TIP safeguards; otherwise circumstantial narratives—even supported by isolated forensic traces—may not survive appellate scrutiny. The appellant was therefore entitled to acquittal and release.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 461 : 2025 INSC 167.
ii. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
iii. Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71.
iv. Delhi Administration v. Bal Krishan & Ors., (1972) 4 SCC 659.
v. Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1116.
vi. Bodhraj Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45.
vii. Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 12 SCC 545.
viii. Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (particularly s.27, and ss.25–26).
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ss.302, 201).
iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.