Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to inconsistencies in evidence: Raja Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) INSC 167 (07 February 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 07 February 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 167

Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Manmohan, J.

In a case hinging on circumstantial evidence, can inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence lead to the acquittal of the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in Raja Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The Court examined the reliability of the evidence presented, particularly focusing on the recovery of incriminating items and the ‘last seen’ theory.

The core issue revolved around whether the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances that proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a case lacking eyewitness testimony or a judicially admissible confession. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The prosecution’s case was that Neeraj Yadav (“deceased”) went missing on 29th November 2013. His father, Premlal Yadav (PW-5), filed a missing person report on 30th November 2013. On 1st December 2013, Chandrashekhar Verma (PW-1) informed the police about a dead body found in a stone quarry pond in Village Dondekala Matia.

A MERG Intimation (MERG No. 62/2013) was registered on 2nd December 2013. The deceased’s body was sent for a post-mortem examination, which concluded that the death was homicidal. Subsequently, an FIR (No. 228/2013) was registered on 3rd December 2013 at P.S. Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur. The deceased was identified by his cousin, Balram Yadav (PW-21).

During the investigation, it was revealed that the Appellant-accused had borrowed money from the deceased, leading to a dispute over repayment.

The prosecution alleged that on the intervening day, the Appellant-accused, along with co-accused Tarachand Verma (who was acquitted by the Trial Court), took the deceased to the incident site in an auto. There, they allegedly assaulted him with an iron pipe and battleaxe (Gandasa), resulting in his murder. To conceal evidence, they allegedly smashed his head with a stone, tied a rope around his waist, and threw the body into the quarry’s water.

The post-mortem examination, conducted by Dr. Nitin Shaymrao Barmate (PW-10), indicated that the injuries were inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon and blunt force trauma. The cause of death was determined to be “Head Injury,” and the death was classified as homicidal.

A Memorandum of Statement (Ex. P-23) of the Appellant-accused, recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, led to the discovery and seizure of an iron blade (Gandasa) and a blood-covered stone from Kachna Pond. Additionally, two gold chains belonging to the deceased were recovered from the rooftop of the Appellant-accused’s house. The FSL report (Ex. P-39) confirmed the presence of human blood on the seized stone.

The prosecution presented Bhagwat Prasad Sahu (PW-23) and Balram Yadav (PW-21) as witnesses to establish that the deceased was last seen with the Appellant-accused. They testified that they saw the deceased traveling with the Appellant-accused in an auto on 29th November 2013, between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM.

Statements were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Appellant-accused and co-accused Tarachand for offenses punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 201 of IPC. Charges were framed against both individuals.

To support the charges, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses and presented 39 documents. The defense did not present any witnesses.

The Appellant-accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where he denied all allegations and pleaded innocence.

Timeline:

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant-Accused

Mr. Saubhagya Chauriha, the learned counsel for the Appellant-accused, argued that:

• There were grave inconsistencies in the seizures made by the investigating authority.
• The courts below 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 (“IO”) in the presence of Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) and Bhupender Dhruv, but Bhupender Dhruv was not examined.
• PW-22’s testimony revealed that he had not seen the Memorandum Statement and property seizure memo as put forth by the Investigating Agency. PW-22 testified 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.
• PW-22 and PW-26’s testimonies revealed that articles such as the stone and the gandasa (battleaxe) were recovered by PW-26 from the bottom of Kachna Pond at the instance of the police officer and not of the Appellant-accused.
• The Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) of the two gold chains was questionable because the place of recovery, the rooftop of the Appellant-accused’s house, was an open space accessible to the public from outside. The recovery was made by climbing onto the rooftop from outside the house.
• The recovery of the gold chains was fabricated as the witnesses 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 that the recovery was made at the instance of the Appellant-accused.
• The “last seen” theory does not help the prosecution’s case due to marked variance and material contradictions as to the place and time of last seen. The testimony of PW-23 is not corroborated by the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, and PW-5.
• The prosecution failed to establish a motive for the Appellant-accused to commit the offense, as there was no evidence or record to show the amount of money that the Appellant-accused had borrowed from the deceased. The prosecution 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 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 an 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

Mr. Prafful Bharat, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-State, argued that:

• The recovery of the stone used in the commission of the crime was 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), duly supported the same. The FSL Report (Ex. P-39) found human blood on the seized stone.
• Based on 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, 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).
• 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. 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.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether the prosecution had successfully proven the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, especially given the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

1. Whether the recoveries made by the police pursuant to the alleged disclosure made by the Appellant-accused were valid, considering the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses.
2. Whether the ‘last seen’ circumstance was reliably established, given the lack of corroboration in the testimonies of the witnesses.
3. Whether the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) 2 SCC 71: The Court used this authority to emphasize that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete, excluding every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: The Court used this authority to outline the five essential principles that must be satisfied for circumstantial evidence to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused.
• Delhi Administration vs. Bal Krishan & Ors., (1972) 4 SCC 659: The Court used this authority to establish that Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and serves as a proviso to both sections.
• Udai Bhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1116: The Court used this authority to clarify that the 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.
• Bodhraj Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45: The Court used this authority to address the question of whether evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused.
• Palukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, AIR (1947) PC 67: The Court used this authority as a key authority supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” embraces the place from which the object was produced and the knowledge of the accused about it.
• State of Maharashtra v. Dam Gopinath Shirde and Ors, (2000) 6 SCC 269: The Court used this authority to emphasize that the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered.”
• Varun Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 12 SCC 545: The Court used this authority to support the principle 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.
• Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724: The Court used this authority to support the principle 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.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused in Raja Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies and doubts surrounding the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Several factors weighed heavily in the Court’s analysis:

• Doubts Regarding Disclosure and Recovery: The Court found that the manner of recovery and preparation of seizure memos raised grave doubts about the version of disclosure and recovery put forth by the prosecution. The testimonies of the witnesses were inconsistent, casting a shadow on the validity of the recoveries made by the police.
• Inconsistencies in Testimonies: The Court noted glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, particularly regarding the recovery of the gold chains from the house of the Appellant-accused. The presence of the Appellant-accused at the time of the said recovery was also doubtful.
• Unreliable ‘Last Seen’ Circumstance: The Court expressed doubt with respect to the ‘last seen’ circumstance, as the testimony of PW-23 was not corroborated by the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5.
• Circumstantial Evidence: The entire case of the prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence, and the Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fact:Law

The Supreme Court’s decision in Raja Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The court’s analysis of the factual aspects of the case, such as the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the doubts surrounding the disclosure and recovery of evidence, played a significant role in its decision. Additionally, the court’s application of legal principles, such as the need for a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence, also contributed to its conclusion.

Logical Reasoning

For the issue of whether the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt:

Start -> Case rests on circumstantial evidence -> Are the circumstances fully established? -> No -> Are the facts consistent only with the guilt of the accused? -> No -> Are the circumstances conclusive? -> No -> Do they exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt? -> No -> Is the chain of evidence complete, leaving no reasonable doubt? -> No -> Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt -> Acquit Accused

Final Order

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and the conviction of the Appellant-accused. The appeal was allowed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Raja Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh underscores the critical importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases resting on circumstantial evidence. The Court’s meticulous scrutiny of the prosecution’s evidence, including the recovery of incriminating items and the ‘last seen’ theory, highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that the guilt of an accused is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The case serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal proceedings and the potential consequences of inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution’s case.