RAJA KHANversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 461 : 2025 INSC 167

                                 Raja Khan
                                     v.
                           State of Chhattisgarh
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025)
                               07 February 2025
                 [Sanjay Karol and Manmohan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances
       leading to the guilt of the appellant-accused, beyond reasonable
       doubt.

                                   Headnotes†
       Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Case based on circumstantial
       evidence – Prosecution relied on recovery of weapon of assault
       (stone, gandasa) and gold chains belonging to the deceased,
       on the basis of statement given by the appellant in custody –
       Conviction of the appellant u/ss.302 and 201, IPC, if justified:
       Held: No – The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial
       evidence – Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence,
       the chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every
       hypothesis is excluded but the one proposed to be proved and
       such circumstances must show that the act has been done by the
       accused within all human probability – In the present case, the
       testimonies of the panch witnesses raised serious doubts regarding
       the version of the prosecution w.r.t the alleged disclosure made by
       the appellant and the recoveries pursuant thereto – Courts below
       not justified in disregarding the glaring inconsistencies w.r.t the
       recoveries made by the police pursuant to the alleged disclosure
       made by the appellant – The manner of recovery and preparation
       of seizure memos also raised grave doubts about the version of
       disclosure and recovery put forth by the prosecution – Also, the
       testimony of PW-23 was not corroborated by the testimonies
       of PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5, thus there is doubt w.r.t to the ‘last
       seen’ circumstance too – Prosecution failed to prove the chain
       of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, beyond


* Author
462                                                            [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       reasonable doubt – Appellant given benefit of doubt, conviction
       u/ss.302 and 201 set aside. [Paras 16, 22, 30-33]

       Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25-27 – s.27, an exception to ss.25
       and 26:
       Held: ss.25 and 26 stipulate that confession made to a police
       officer is not admissible – However, s.27 is an exception to ss.25
       and 26 and serves as a proviso to both these sections – s.27 lifts
       the ban, though partially, to the admissibility of confessions – The
       removal of the ban is not of such an extent so as to absolutely undo
       the object of s.26 – As such the statement whether confessional
       or not is allowed to be given in evidence but that portion only
       which distinctly relates to discovery of the fact is admissible – A
       discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which
       it is produced and the knowledge of the Appellant-accused as to
       its existence. [Paras 18, 19]

       Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Ingredients – Discussed. [Para 20]

                                Case Law Cited
       Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091 :
       (1952) 2 SCC 71); Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
       Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116; Delhi Administration v. Bal
       Krishan & Ors., (1972) 4 SCC 659; Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar
       Pradesh [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 830 : AIR 1962 SC 1116; Bodhraj
       Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [2002] Supp.
       2 SCR 67 : (2002) 8 SCC 45; Varun Chaudhary v. State of
       Rajasthan [2010] 13 SCR 296 : (2011) 12 SCC 545; Mustkeem
       alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan [2011] 9 SCR 101 : (2011)
       11 SCC 724 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,
       1973.

                               List of Keywords
       Circumstantial evidence; Murder; Iron pipe; Battleaxe (Gandasa);
       Stone; Gold chains; Pond; Stone quarry; Recovery of weapon of
       assault; Alleged disclosure made by the appellant; Recoveries;
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       463

                    Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh


     Discovery and seizure; Seizure and recovery memo; Benefit of
     Doubt; Doubts about the version of disclosure and recovery;
     Confession; Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872; Chain of
     Circumstances; Not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Chain
     of Evidence; Last seen; Testimonies of the panch witnesses;
     Inconsistencies; TIP; Glaring inconsistencies.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     70 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023 of the High Court
     of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 855 of 2014

                        Appearances for Parties
     Ashutosh Dubey, Santosh Chauriha, Saubhagya Chauriha,
     Ms. Rajshri A. Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan, H.B. Dubey, Shohaib
     Alvi, Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Amit P Shahi, Amit Kumar, Advs. for
     the Appellant.
     Prafful Bharat, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Gopinath MR,
     Rajyavardhan Mall, Prashant Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Manmohan, J.

1.   Present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order
     dated 4th 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
464                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           465

                    Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh


     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 the deceased was last seen
          with the Appellant-accused, had examined Bhagwat Prasad
          Sahu (PW-23) and Balram Yadav (PW-21) who had deposed
          that the deceased was seen travelling with the Appellant-
          accused in an auto on 29th November, 2013 between 5:00 PM
          and 6:00 PM.
     2.7. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161
          of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
          to as “Cr.P.C.”) and after the investigation was complete, a
          chargesheet was filed against the Appellant-accused and co-
          accused Tarachand for committing the offences punishable under
          Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of IPC which
          was then committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were
          framed against the Appellant-accused and Tarachand Verma.
     2.8. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the
          Appellant-accused and Tarachand Verma, the prosecution
          examined 26 (twenty-six) witnesses and exhibited 39 (thirty-
          nine) documents and on the other hand no defense witness
          was examined.
466                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       2.9. The Appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 of
            Cr.P.C. wherein the Appellant-accused denied all the allegations
            and charges and pleaded innocence.
3.     The Trial Court heard arguments on behalf of the Appellant-accused
       and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record,
       acquitted the co-accused Tarachand Verma from all charges but
       convicted the Appellant-accused vide its judgment and order dated
       12th August, 2014 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
4.     Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Appellant-accused
       preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court challenging the
       order of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. The
       High Court vide the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal and
       affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
       The High Court held that the stone which was stained with human
       blood was seized at the instance of the Appellant-accused and the
       two gold chains were found from the house of the Appellant-accused
       regarding which the Appellant-accused had failed to provide any
       explanation.
5.     Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred by
       the Appellant-accused.

       ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED
6.     Mr. Saubhagya Chauriha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
       the Appellant-accused stated that there were grave inconsistencies
       in the seizure made by the investigating authority. He stated that
       the Courts below had failed to appreciate that the Memorandum
       of Statement of the Appellant-accused under Section 27 of the
       Evidence Act was recorded by the Investigating Officer (hereinafter
       referred to as “IO”) in the presence of one Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) and
       Bhupender Dhruv, however, Bhupender Dhruv was not examined by
       the Investigating Agency.
7.     He emphasised that a perusal of the testimony of PW-22 reveals
       that the said witness had not seen the Memorandum Statement and
       property seizure memo as put forth by the Investigating Agency. He
       further stated that PW-22’s testimony discloses that he and Bhupender
       Dhruv had signed a number of documents pertaining to seizure of
       articles, before leaving the police station and had not signed any
       documents after seizure was made by the IO.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          467

                    Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh


8.   He stated that a perusal of the testimonies of PW-22 and PW-26
     reveal that Ex. P-25 articles such as stone and the gandasa were
     recovered by PW-26 from the bottom of Kachna Pond at the instance
     of the police officer and not of the Appellant-accused.
9.   He stated that the Test Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as
     “TIP”) of the two gold chains, purportedly belonging to the deceased
     was questionable as the place of recovery i.e. rooftop of the house of
     the Appellant-accused, was an open space accessible to public from
     outside and the same was evidenced from the fact that the recovery
     was made by climbing onto the rooftop from outside the house.
10. According to him, the recovery of the gold chains was fabricated as
    the witnesses i.e. Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) and Bhupender Dhruv never
    saw the police officers recovering the same from the house of the
    Appellant-accused. Further, neither the testimony of the witnesses
    nor the IO mentioned that the Appellant-accused was accompanying
    the recovery team or the recovery was made at the instance of the
    Appellant-accused.
11. He contended that the last seen theory does not help the case of the
    prosecution in view of the marked variance and material contradictions
    as to the place and time of last seen. He further stated that since
    the testimony of PW-23 is not corroborated by the testimonies of
    PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5.
12. He stated that the prosecution had failed to establish motive on
    the part of the Appellant-accused to commit the offence as there
    was no evidence or record to show the amount of money that the
    Appellant-accused had borrowed from the deceased. According to
    him, prosecution had failed to produce any other evidence to prove
    the inimical relationship between the deceased and the Appellant-
    accused except the testimony of PW-2, who vaguely deposed before
    the Trial Court that the deceased had many enemies, but did not
    mention the name of the Appellant-accused as one of them and the
    testimony of PW-15 pertaining to earlier scuffle of the deceased with
    the Appellant-accused was not reliable as she failed to state the
    same to police in her statement (Ex. D/2).

     ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE
13. Per contra, Mr. Prafful Bharat, learned Senior Counsel appearing
    on behalf of the Respondent-State stated that the recovery of the
468                                                       [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       stone which was used for commission of crime had been made at
       the instance of the Appellant-accused. According to the disclosure
       statement (Ex. P-23) of the Appellant-accused, the stone was thrown
       by him in the Kachna pond and PW-22, who is the witness to the
       memorandum statement and seizure memo (Ex. P-25), had duly
       supported the same. As per the FSL Report (Ex. P-39), human blood
       was found on the seized stone.
14. He further stated that on the basis of the disclosure statement of the
    Appellant-accused, two gold chains belonging to the deceased were
    also seized at the instance of the Appellant-accused from the roof of
    the house of the Appellant-accused, which had been duly proved by
    PW-22. Additionally, he pointed out that the seized gold chains were
    identified by PW-2 vide memo of identification (Ex. P-10) which had
    been duly proved by Gopi Sahu (PW-6).
15. He stated that it was evident from the testimony of PW-23 that
    the deceased was last seen together with the Appellant-accused
    before he went missing and his dead body was found on 2nd
    December, 2013 floating in the pond of stone quarry at Village
    Dondekala Matia. He pointed out that the statement of PW-23
    was corroborated by the statement of PW-21 to whom PW-23 had
    informed on 30th November, 2013 regarding last seen and missing
    of the deceased.

       REASONING
16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the entire case of the
    prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, as there is neither
    any eye-witness nor any judicially admissible confession. It is well
    settled law that where the case rests entirely on circumstantial
    evidence, the chain of evidence must be so far complete, such
    that every hypothesis is excluded but the one proposed to be
    proved and such circumstances must show that the act has been
    done by the Appellant-accused within all human probability (See
    Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71). In
    Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984)
    4 SCC 116, this Court outlined five essential principles, often
    referred to as five golden principles, which must be satisfied for
    circumstantial evidence to conclusively establish the guilt of the
    Appellant-accused:
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          469

                    Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh


           “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
           is to be drawn should be fully established……
           (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
           the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
           they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
           except that the accused is guilty,
           (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
           and tendency,
           (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
           the one to be proved, and
           (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
           not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
           consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
           show that in all human probability the act must have been
           done by the accused.”
17. To prove the charges, the prosecution has laid emphasis on recovery
    of weapon of assault (stone as well as the gandasa) and gold chains
    belonging to the deceased, on the basis of statement (Ex. P-23)
    given by the Appellant-accused while in custody.
18. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act stipulate that confession
    made to a police officer is not admissible. However, Section 27 is
    an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and serves as a proviso to both
    these sections [Delhi Administration vs. Bal Krishan & Ors.,
    (1972) 4 SCC 659].
19. This Court is of the view that Section 27 lifts the ban, though partially,
    to the admissibility of confessions. The removal of the ban is not of
    such an extent so as to absolutely undo the object of Section 26.
    As such the statement whether confessional or not is allowed to be
    given in evidence but that portion only which distinctly relates to
    discovery of the fact is admissible. A discovery of a fact includes the
    object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge
    of the Appellant-accused as to its existence (Udai Bhan Vs. State
    of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1116).
20. The essential ingredients of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are
    three-fold:
470                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       i.     The information given by the accused must led to the discovery
              of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information.
       ii.    Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly
              connected with the said recovery is admissible against the
              accused.
       iii.   The discovery of the facts must relate to the commission of
              such offence.
21. The question as to whether evidence relating to recovery is sufficient
    to fasten guilt on the accused was considered by this Court in Bodhraj
    Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC
    45, wherein it has been held as under:-
              “18… Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in
              short “Evidence Act”) is by way of proviso to Sections
              25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession
              made in police custody which distinctly relates to the
              fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the
              accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this
              Court in Delhi Admn v. Balakrishan [(1972) 4 SCC 659]
              and Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1
              SCC 828]. The words “so much of such information” as
              relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, are very
              important and the whole force of the section concentrates
              on them. Clearly the extent of the information admissible
              must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered
              to which such information is required to relate. The ban
              as imposed by the preceding sections was presumably
              inspired by the fear of the Legislature that a person
              under police influence might be induced to confess by the
              exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift
              the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information
              relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems
              reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of
              the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that
              in practice the ban will lose its effect. The object of
              the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the
              admission of evidence which but for the existence of
              the section could not in consequence of the preceding
              sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                             471

                    Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh


           under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the
           evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible,
           the information must come from any accused in
           custody of the police. The requirement of police custody
           is productive of extremely anomalous results and may
           lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases
           where a person, who is subsequently taken in to custody
           and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets
           a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police
           station and states the circumstances of the crime which
           lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any
           other material fact, in consequence of the information thus
           received from him. This information which is otherwise
           admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the
           information did not come from a person in the custody of a
           police officer or did come from a person not in the custody
           of a police officer. The statement which is admissible
           under Section 27 is the one which is the information
           leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being
           the information, the same has to be proved and not the
           opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words,
           the exact information given by the accused while in
           custody which led to recovery of the articles has to
           be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of
           both the accused and prosecution that information given
           should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded,
           the exact information must be adduced through evidence.
           The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence
           Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.
           The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact
           is discovered as a search made on the strength of any
           information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is
           a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner
           is true. The information might be confessional or non-
           inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact,
           it becomes a reliable information. It is now well settled that
           recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in
           the section. Decision of Privy Council in Palukuri Kotayya
           v. Emperor [AIR (1947) PC 67], is the most quoted
           authority of supporting the interpretation that the “fact
472                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place
          from which the object was produced, the knowledge of
          the accused as to it, but the information given must relate
          distinctly to that effect. [See State of Maharashtra v. Dam
          Gopinath Shirde and Ors, (2000) 6 SCC 269]. No doubt,
          the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is
          confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly
          relates to the fact thereby discovered”. But the information
          to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it
          insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information
          admitted should be consistent with understandability.
          Mere statement that the accused led the police and
          the witnesses to the place where he had concealed
          the articles is not indicative of the information given.
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

22. In the present case, the prosecution has produced Tirath Dhruv (PW-
    22) and Bhuvan Dhimar (PW-26) as the panch witnesses to prove the
    recovery pursuant to the disclosure made by the Appellant-accused.
    A bare perusal of the testimonies of the said witnesses raises serious
    doubts regarding the version of the prosecution with respect to the
    alleged disclosure made by the Appellant-accused herein and the
    recoveries pursuant to such alleged disclosure.
23. Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) has deposed that when the Appellant-accused
    was questioned in his presence, the Appellant-accused stated that
    he could recover the stone, axe and the pipe. However, during his
    cross-examination, Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) admits that he along with
    another witness (not produced during trial) stayed in police station for
    about 5 (five) minutes during which period, the police made them sign
    many papers. The said witness further admits that the Memoradum
    of Statement (Ex.P-23) of the Appellant-accused had been taken
    and he signed the same on the instructions of the police, without
    reading or understanding the contents of the said document. He
    admits that none of the seizure memos were prepared or signed at
    the spot. He states that the same were prepared and signed at the
    police station. Therefore, from the testimony of Tirath Dhruv (PW-
    22), there is grave doubt as to whether the Appellant-accused had
    made any disclosure in front of the said witness or that any alleged
    recovery had in fact been witnessed by Tirath Dhruv (PW-22).
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                         473

                    Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh


24. Ex. P-25, i.e., the seizure memo for the stone and gandasa states that
    the said items were taken out at the behest of the Appellant-accused.
    Similarly, in Ex. P-29, it has been stated that the chains were taken out
    by the Appellant-accused. However, Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) nowhere
    states that the Appellant-accused was present along with the said
    witness and the police during the seizure proceedings (i.e. when Ex.
    P-25 to Ex. P-31 were prepared). In fact, none of the seizure memos
    apart from Ex. P-29 and Ex. P-25 state that the recoveries therein were
    at the instance of the Appellant-accused or the acquitted co-accused.
25. Further, a perusal of the disclosure statement made by the Appellant-
    accused indicates that the Appellant-accused had allegedly hidden the
    gold chains allegedly belonging to the deceased by wrapping them in
    a red wrapper and then hiding them at the terrace of his house behind
    a green-coloured container. However, the seizure memo being Ex.
    P-29 states that the chains were recovered from a green-coloured
    blanket on the roof of the house. The said seizure memo further
    states that the police took possession of the articles after they were
    taken out by the Appellant-accused in presence of the witnesses.
    On the other hand, the IO–G.S. Singh (PW-25), states that at the
    time of seizure proceedings of Ex. P-29, he himself had not gone
    to the roof and the Appellant-accused and the witness had gone to
    the roof. Pertinently, Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) in his deposition, without
    making any reference to the presence of the Appellant-accused,
    states that a policeman had climbed the roof of the house of the
    Appellant-accused from the outside and, thereafter, he along with
    Bhupender Dhruv climbed on the said roof from which the recovery
    of chains was made. Therefore, there are glaring inconsistencies
    with respect to the manner in which gold chains were recovered from
    the house of the Appellant-accused and further, the presence of the
    Appellant-accused at the time of the said recovery is itself doubtful.
26. Similarly, Bhuvan Dhimar (PW-26), i.e., the diver who allegedly
    recovered the stone and the gandasa from the Kachna pond, in his
    testimony admits that he recovered the said items upon the instruction
    from the police and from the place told by the police without making
    any reference to the presence of the Appellant-accused or the fact
    that the said items were recovered upon being pointed out by the
    Appellant-accused. The fact that the items from Kachna pond were
    seized upon the instructions from the police is corroborated by the
    statement of Tirath Dhruv (PW-22), who unequivocally states that
474                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       it was the police who instructed the divers to go into the pond and
       take out the items.
27. This Court, in Varun Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 12
    SCC 545 and Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan,
    (2011) 11 SCC 724, has held that if the recovery memos have been
    prepared in the police station itself or signed by the panch witnesses
    in the police station, the same would lose their sanctity and cannot
    be relied upon by the Court to support the conviction.
28. There are also glaring inconsistencies in the TIP of the gold chains
    rendering the proceedings unreliable and inadmissible, as Anwar
    Hussain (PW-20) (who identified the two gold chains) has consistently
    denied that Purnima Yadav (PW-2) (wife of the deceased) identified
    the two gold chains and that the said gold chains belonged to the
    deceased. He further denied that six more similar chains were placed
    alongside the said two gold chains. This fact has been corroborated
    by the testimonies of Gopi Sahu (PW-6) and Yugal Kishore Verma
    (PW-7), wherein they have stated that only two gold chains were
    placed for identification.
29. Further, the testimonies of witnesses reveal that the two gold chains
    do not bear any distinguishable mark or properties and no identification
    mark or properties were disclosed by Purnima Yadav (PW-2) prior
    to identification proceedings. Purnima Yadav (PW-2) states in her
    testimony that the two gold chains were handed over to her at the
    police station on 10th December, 2013 in exchange for receipts/bills/
    invoices, a day prior to the conduct of the TIP of the gold chains.
30. This Court is of the view that the Courts below were not justified in
    disregarding the glaring inconsistencies with respect to the recoveries
    made by the police pursuant to the alleged disclosure made by
    the Appellant-accused. Consequently, the manner of recovery and
    preparation of seizure memos raises grave doubts about the version
    of disclosure and recovery put forth by the prosecution.
31. Also, as the testimony of PW-23 is not corroborated by the testimonies
    of PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5, this Court has doubt with respect to the
    ‘last seen’ circumstance too.
32. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the
    prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading
    to the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                     475

                      Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh


     CONCLUSION
33. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Appellant-accused is
    entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgments
    and the conviction of the Appellant-accused under Sections 302 and
    201 of IPC are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. The
    Respondents are directed to release the Appellant-accused forthwith
    unless and until he is in detention in another matter.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey