Conviction Set Aside as Court Finds Circumstantial Chain Incomplete; Accused Entitled to Benefit of Doubt

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan heard the appeal arising from Criminal Appeal No. CRA/855/2014 and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14411 of 2024, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appeal concerned the alleged murder of Neeraj Yadav, recoveries made during investigation and the admissibility and reliability of a disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and directed immediate release of the appellant unless detained in another matter. The Court held that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the “chain of evidence” required to exclude every other hypothesis was incomplete. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “(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.” The Court further noted that while Section 27 permitted admission of information leading to discovery, the manner and circumstances of the recoveries created “grave doubts” about their authenticity and probative value.

Background

The prosecution case was that Neeraj Yadav went missing on 29 November 2013 and his dead body was found floating in a quarry pond on 1–2 December 2013; post-mortem recorded homicide due to head injuries. Investigators alleged that the appellant had borrowed money from the deceased, quarreled and, together with a co-accused (acquitted at trial), assaulted and killed the deceased. A memorandum under Section 27 led to recovery of a blood-stained stone and a gandasa from a pond and two gold chains from the rooftop of the appellant’s house; FSL reported human blood on the stone. The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment; the High Court dismissed the appeal.

On appeal before the Supreme Court, defence counsel challenged the recoveries, pointing to inconsistencies in panch testimony, that seizure memos were prepared and signed at the police station, and that witnesses admitted signing documents on police instructions. The State relied on the Section 27 disclosure and FSL report. The Court analysed authorities including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Bodhraj v. State of J&K, and reiterating principles on Section 27 and circumstantial proof, found the recoveries and identification proceedings to be riddled with material contradictions. The Court recorded that panch witnesses had not clearly witnessed the recoveries, divers recovered items on police instruction, seizure memos differed from the disclosure statement and identification of chains lacked distinguishing marks. Given these infirmities and that the “last seen” evidence was not satisfactorily corroborated, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not excluded every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. The Court held that the appellant “is entitled to the benefit of doubt” and allowed the appeal, directing release subject to other detentions.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14411 of 2024); REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 167 Case Title: Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saubhagya Chauriha, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prafful Bharat, Senior Counsel