Holding

The conviction for murder was unsustainable because the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime, despite the admissibility of the ballistic evidence.

Summary

The appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, was convicted for the murder of Narayan Singh based on the recovery of a pistol from his possession and a ballistic report linking the weapon to the fatal bullet. The prosecution’s case relied on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, which led to the discovery of the pistol, and on circumstantial evidence with no eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court examined whether the evidence admissible under Sections 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act, together with the ballistic report, satisfied the stringent requirements for conviction on circumstantial evidence. It held that, although the ballistic report was an inculpatory fact, the absence of any corroborative evidence created a gap in the chain of circumstances, failing to exclude reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not proved the appellant’s participation in the murder, either individually or in conspiracy. The conviction was set aside and the appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled.

Issues considered

Whether the ballistic evidence and the pistol recovered on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure, admissible under Sections 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act, is sufficient to secure a conviction for murder.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented satisfies the five 'golden rules' required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1-B)(A)
Evidence Act, 1872s. 27, s. 274, s. 8, s. 83
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 201, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

MurderRecovery of pistolBallistic reportNo eyewitnesses to the crimeInculpatory factDisclosure statementAbsence of corroborative evidenceChain of circumstancesCommon intentionConspiracyEvidenceCircumstantial evidence

Judgment

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 609 : 2024 INSC 723

Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 2030 of 2024)
19 September 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna,* Sanjay Kumar and
R. Mahadevan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a
conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim.

Headnotes†
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.8 and 27 – Motive, preparation
and previous or subsequent conduct – How much of
information received from accused may be proved – Chain of
circumstances to establish hypothesis of guilt – Absence of
corroborative evidence – On facts, conviction of the appellant
u/ss.302, 34 and 120B IPC and s.25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act,
for committing murder of the victim, by the courts below –
Conviction on the basis of the recovery of a pistol from him and
the ballistic report which confirmed that the bullet recovered
from the body of the victim, was fired from the pistol recovered
from the appellant, however, no eyewitnesses to the crime,
implicating the appellant – Correctness:
Held: Ballistic report connecting the pistol recovered from the
appellant with the bullet recovered from the body of the victim, is
an inculpatory fact – Prosecution case that the said discovery and
recovery of the pistol is attributable to the disclosure statement
provided by the co-accused (since deceased), are governed by
ss.8 and 27 – As the disclosure statement led to the arrest of the
appellant, the prosecution may take the benefit of s.8 – However,
absence of any corroborative evidence directly linking the appellant
to the crime introduces a significant gap in facts as alleged in the
chain of circumstances, which fails to establish a hypothesis of
guilt that conclusively excludes all other reasonable possibilities –
To establish that the appellant participated in the murder, the

* Author
610 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

prosecution must present further material and evidence linking
the appellant to the actual crime – Appellant may be guilty of an
offence u/s.201 IPC, the evidence provided by the prosecution
insufficient to secure a conviction for the murder of the victim –
Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant guilty of
murder, either individually or with shared common intention or
in conspiracy with the co-accused – Thus, the conviction of the
appellant set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 and 120B –
Arms Act, 1959 – s.25(1-B)(A). [Paras 11, 13, 15, 16]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – How much of information received
from accused may be proved – Conditions to be satisfied
u/s.27 – Stated. [Para 12]

Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Principles to be satisfied
to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused:
Held: Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence,
a finding of guilt is justified only if all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are incompatible with the accused’s innocence –
There must be a chain of evidence 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. [Para 9]

Case Law Cited
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091 : (1952)
2 SCC 71; Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharasthra
[1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Perumal Raja v. State,
Represented By Inspector of Police [2024] 1 SCR 87; Mohmed
Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [1976] 1 SCR 715 : (1976) 1
SCC 828; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [1999] Supp. 5 SCR
215 : (2000) 1 SCC 471 – referred to.

List of Acts
Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959.

List of Keywords
Murder; Recovery of pistol; Ballistic report; No eyewitnesses to
the crime; Inculpatory fact; Disclosure statement; Absence of
corroborative evidence; Chain of circumstances; Common intention;
Conspiracy; Evidence; Circumstantial evidence.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 611

Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
2030 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2022 of the High Court
of M.P. at Indore in CRLA No. 5856 of 2017

Appearances for Parties
Ms. Shweta Garg, Ashish Gopal Garg, Rakesh Garg, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Nachiketa Joshi Sr. Adv./A.A.G., Pashupathi Nath Razdan,
Pushpender Singh, Mirza Kayesh Begg, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat
Joshi, Ms. Ruby, Advs. for the Respondent.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Five individuals, namely, Laadkunwar Bai, Jitendra Singh, Nirbhay
Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Meharban Singh and the appellant,
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, were prosecuted for the murder of
Narayan Singh in the chargesheet arising out of First Information
Report No. 640/2011 dated 13.11.2011, registered with Police
Station – Industrial Area, District Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, for
offence(s)punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959.
2. Three out of these five persons are related to the victim, Narayan
Singh. Laadkunwar Bai and Jitendra Singh are the wife and son of
the victim, Narayan Singh. Meharban Singh is the father-in-law of
Jitendra Singh, the son of Narayan Singh. The remaining two persons,
namely, Nirbhay Singh and the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @
Gopal, are allegedly hired killers.
3. On 30.11.2017, the trial court acquitted Laadkunwar Bai and Meharban
Singh. However, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Jitendra Singh,
and the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, were convicted.
4. Following this, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama, Jitendra Singh, and
the appellant filed appeals before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Indore. During the pendency of the appeal, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh
Mama passed away, resulting in the dismissal of his appeal as abated.
612 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

5. By the impugned judgment dated 18.10.2022, Jitendra Singh has
been acquitted. His acquittal has not been challenged. However,
the conviction of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, was
upheld, prompting him to file the present appeal.
6. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is that on 13.11.2011, at 9.30 p.m.,
Rachna Bai, the mother of the victim, Narayan Singh, deposed as
PW-2 that both she and Narayan Singh were sleeping at their house in
Village Binjana, District Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. Someone called out
Narayan Singh’s name from outside, prompting him to open the door.
At that moment, Rachna Bai (PW-2) heard a gunshot. She ran towards
Narayan Singh, and shortly after, a second gunshot was fired, striking
Narayan Singh in the chest, and causing him to fall. When Rachna
Bai (PW-2) went outside, she saw her daughter-in-law, Laadkunwar
Bai (Narayan Singh’s wife), and Jitendra Singh (Narayan Singh’s
son) standing on the opposite side of the house. She also saw two
individuals with their faces covered fleeing the scene on a motorcycle.
7. The prosecution’s primary evidence against the appellant,
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, also referenced in the impugned judgment,
is the recovery (Exhibit P-6) of a pistol and the ballistic report (Exhibit
P-57), which confirms that the bullet (Exhibit B-1) recovered from the
body of the victim, Narayan Singh, was fired from the country-made
pistol (Exhibit A-1 and C-1). There is evidence to show that the pistol
was recovered (Exhibit P-6) from the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh
@ Gopal, and we would accept the said version of the prosecution.
8. There are no eyewitnesses to the crime, implicating the appellant,
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal. The case against the appellant,
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.
9. Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, a finding
of guilt is justified only if all the incriminating facts and circumstances
are incompatible with the accused’s innocence. In other words,
there must be a chain of evidence 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.1
10. In Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharasthra,2 this
Court outlined five essential principles, often referred to as the

1 Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) 2 SCC 71
2 [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 613

Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

“golden rules”, which must be satisfied for circumstantial evidence
to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused:
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
xxx xxx xxx
(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.”
11. The ballistic report (Exhibit P-57) connects the pistol recovered
(Exhibit P-6) from the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal,
with the bullet (Exhibit B-1) recovered from the body of the victim,
Narayan Singh. This is an inculpatory fact. However, it is also the
prosecution’s case that the said discovery and recovery is attributable
to the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-35) provided by the co-accused,
Nirbhay Singh (since deceased). Such discovery and recovery at
the instance of an accused are governed by Sections 83 and 274 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.5

3 Section 8 of the Evidence Act reads:
“8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.— Any fact is relevant which shows or
constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of any party, or of
any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference
to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is
the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue
or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.”
4 Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads:
“27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.— Provided that, when any fact is
deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence,
in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not,
as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
5 For short, “Evidence Act”.
614 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

12. This Court, in Perumal Raja v. State, Represented By Inspector of
Police,6 has referred to Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra,7
which elucidated the conditions required to be satisfied under
Section 27:
“Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections
25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes that part of the
statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in
consequence of the information received from a person
accused of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to
the fact thereby discovered, admissible in evidence against
the accused. The fact which is discovered as a consequence
of the information given is admissible in evidence. Further,
the fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical
object and only that information which distinctly relates to
that discovery can be proved.”
The word, “distinctly”, used in Section 27 relates to the discovered
fact. Only that much which relates to the discovery of a physical
object is admissible. The rest of the testimony is to be excluded. The
facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the admissible portion
of the statement of the accused, would give rise to two alternative
hypotheses, namely, (i) that the accused had himself deposited the
physical items that were recovered; or (ii) only the accused knew that
the physical items were lying at that place. The second hypothesis
is wholly compatible with the innocence of the accused, whereas the
first would be a factor to show the involvement of the accused in the
offence. The court has to analyse which of the hypotheses should be
accepted in a particular case. Further, a fact already known to the
police is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
13. As the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-35) has led to the arrest of the
appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, the prosecution may take the
benefit of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, even
assuming this to be the case, the absence of any corroborative evidence
directly linking the appellant to the crime introduces a significant gap
in facts as alleged in the chain of circumstances. In our view, this fails
to establish a hypothesis of guilt that conclusively excludes all other
reasonable possibilities.

6 [2024] 1 SCR 87
7 [1976] 1 SCR 715 : (1976) 1 SCC 828
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 615

Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

14. This Court, in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh,8 observed that
when any incriminating material is discovered based on a disclosure
statement, three hypotheses emerge: -
“26. We too countenance three possibilities when an accused
points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating
material was concealed without stating that it was concealed
by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed
it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else
concealing it. And the third is that he would have been told
by another person that it was concealed there…”
15. In the present context, it is the prosecution’s case that the location
of the pistol was disclosed by the co-accused, Nirbhay Singh (since
deceased). However, to establish that the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh
@ Gopal, participated in the murder, the prosecution must present
further material and evidence linking the appellant to the actual crime.
While the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, may be guilty of an
offence under Section 201 of the IPC, the evidence provided by the
prosecution is insufficient to secure a conviction for the murder of the
victim, Narayan Singh, on 13.11.2011. Consequently, the prosecution
has failed to prove that the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, is
guilty of murder, either individually or with shared common intention
or in conspiracy with the co-accused, Nirbhay Singh @ Rajesh Mama
(now deceased).
16. We, therefore, allow the present appeal and set aside the conviction
of the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal. The appellant,
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal, was granted bail by this Court on
suspension of sentence, vide order dated 08.04.2024. The bail bonds
and sureties furnished by the appellant, Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal,
shall be treated as cancelled.
17. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the Case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

8 [1999] Supp. 5 SCR 215 : (2000) 1 SCC 471