Inconsistent Evidence Leads to Acquittal: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction Due to Doubtful Recoveries and Unreliable Witness Testimony, Highlighting the Importance of Solid Proof

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: RAJA KHAN vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH.

Citation: 2025 INSC 167 (Reportable)


Case Overview

This is a criminal appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India against the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, which had convicted the appellant, Raja Khan, for murder (Section 302 of IPC) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 of IPC). The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Background

Neeraj Yadav went missing on November 29, 2013, and a missing person report was filed by his father. His dead body was discovered in a pond on December 1, 2013. The post-mortem revealed that the death was homicidal, caused by head injuries. The prosecution alleged that Raja Khan had borrowed money from the deceased, and a dispute over repayment had arisen. The prosecution claimed to have recovered a blood-stained stone, a gandasa, and two gold chains belonging to the deceased based on the disclosure statement of the appellant. The prosecution also presented witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased with Raja Khan on the day he went missing. A chargesheet was filed against Raja Khan and Tarachand Verma (who was later acquitted).

Trial Court and High Court Judgments

The Trial Court found Raja Khan guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and five years rigorous imprisonment for causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court affirmed this conviction.

Appellant's Arguments

The defense argued that there were inconsistencies in the seizure of the weapons and gold chains, casting doubt on the entire recovery process. The witness to the memorandum statement denied seeing the recovery or even the statement itself. The defense also argued that the "last seen" testimony was not corroborated and was inconsistent. The defense claimed that the prosecution failed to establish motive, as there was no clear evidence of the amount owed.

Respondent's Arguments

The prosecution argued that the stone was recovered based on the appellant's disclosure statement. They argued that the gold chains were recovered at the appellant's instance and were identified as belonging to the deceased. The prosecution claimed that the "last seen" evidence was significant.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Court emphasized that the case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, thus the prosecution needed to establish a complete chain of evidence that excluded every other hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The Court discussed Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that only that portion of a statement which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible. The Court found serious doubts in the prosecution’s version of recovery and highlighted the fact that seizure memos were often prepared and signed at the police station. The Court found the TIP of the gold chains unreliable. The Court also found the last seen theory doubtful due to a lack of corroboration. The Court held that "the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt".

Key Legal Principles

In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no room for a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. Only the specific part of a statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, not the entire confessional statement. The testimony of witnesses must be credible and consistent.

Rationale

  1. The case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, requiring a complete chain of evidence excluding all other hypotheses.
  2. The prosecution emphasized the recovery of the murder weapon (stone and gandasa) and gold chains based on the appellant's statement in custody.
  3. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for the admission of the portion of a statement made by a person in police custody which directly leads to the discovery of a fact related to the crime.
  4. The court found serious doubts about the prosecution's version of the recovery, particularly due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the preparation of seizure memos at the police station.
  5. The witness to the memorandum statement denied seeing the recoveries or the appellant's statement.
  6. The diver stated he recovered items based on police instructions and not on information from the appellant.
  7. There were inconsistencies in the description of the place of recovery of gold chains.
  8. The court deemed the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the gold chains unreliable.
  9. The “last seen” theory was found to be inconsistent due to lack of corroboration.

Excerpt

“the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and 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.”

"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."

"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 prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt.”

"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."

"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."

Points to Remember

  1. Circumstantial Evidence: Cases based on circumstantial evidence require a complete chain of evidence that excludes all other reasonable hypotheses except the guilt of the accused.
  2. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: Only the portion of a statement that distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible, and this must be proved in court.
  3. Witness Testimony: The credibility and consistency of witness testimony are essential. Inconsistencies can create doubts about the prosecution's case.
  4. Recovery Memos: Seizure memos must be prepared and signed at the scene of the recovery, not at the police station, to maintain their sanctity.
  5. Test Identification Parade (TIP): The TIP procedure must be followed strictly to ensure reliability and should be conducted properly to avoid any doubts.
  6. Last Seen Theory: The 'last seen' theory must be corroborated and should not contain any inconsistencies or contradictions to be considered reliable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant, Raja Khan, set aside the judgments of the High Court and Trial Court, and acquitted him, ordering his immediate release. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, due to doubts regarding the recovery of evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. This judgment underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases that rely on circumstantial evidence and highlights the importance of meticulously following procedures during investigations.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

From Agreement to Dispute: Unpacking the DDA Land Case and its Implications on Property Rights

The Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Development Authority v. S.G.G. Towers (P) Ltd. , Civil Appeal No. 1972 of 2011, 2025 INSC 337 , highlights the complexities of property transactions involving government land and the critical distinction between an agreement to lease and a registered lease deed.  This case, which spanned decades, revolved around a plot of land in Delhi, originally subject to an agreement to lease between the Delhi Improvement Trust (now DDA) and M/s Mehta Constructions in 1957. A crucial aspect of the case was that the formal lease deed was never executed due to non-compliance by M/s Mehta Constructions. Clause 24 of the agreement explicitly stated that the agreement would not confer any rights, title, or interest until the lease was executed and registered. Subsequently, M/s Mehta Constructions entered into an agreement to sell the plot to M/s Pure Drinks, who later faced liquidation. In the liquidation proceedings, S.G.G. Towers purchased the plot in an au...
Read more

Trademark Victory for "STREAX": Court Protects Established Brand Against Infringement

A critical analysis of the trademark infringement case, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited v. Chandan and Shah Trading LLP , 2025:BHC-OS:3609 , reveals key aspects of trademark law and judicial reasoning. The case revolved around the plaintiff's ("Hygienic Research Institute") registered trademark "STREAX" and the defendant's ("Chandan and Shah Trading LLP") use of the mark "STREAK Street". Key points of analysis : Trademark and Goodwill: The plaintiff asserted proprietary rights in its registered trademark "STREAX," emphasizing its extensive use since 2002 and 44 registrations for "STREAX" and its variants. Significant sales turnover, with ₹501 Crores in 2023-24, and advertising expenses of ₹50 Crores, demonstrated the brand's market presence. Infringement and Passing Off: The plaintiff contended that the defendant's mark, "STREAK Street," was deceptively similar to the registered tradem...
Read more