Glaring Inconsistencies Concerning Recoveries Made By Police Pursuant To Alleged Disclosure Made By Accused: SC Acquits Man In Murder Case
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal challenging the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court which upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court has acquitted a man (Appellant) accused of murder while holding that there were glaring inconsistencies with respect to the recoveries made by the police pursuant to the alleged disclosure made by the Appellant.
The Court set aside the Order of conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC which was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court. However, the Supreme Court found serious doubts in the prosecution’s case as it failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan held “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.”
AOR Ashutosh Dubey represented the Appellant, while Advocate Prerna Dhall appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
Two days after the deceased victim was reported missing, his body was found floating in a quarry pond. The post-mortem report concluded that the death was homicidal in nature. The police investigation pointed to the Appellant as the primary suspect as there financial dispute between him and the deceased.
The prosecution alleged that the Appellant, along with a co-accused (who was later acquitted), lured the deceased to the crime scene, assaulted him with an iron pipe and battleaxe (Gandasa), and disposed of his body in the quarry to destroy evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted that the entire case of the prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence, as there was 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,” the Bench explained.
The Court pointed out that the prosecution had claimed that weapons and stolen gold chains were recovered based on the Appellant’s disclosure. However, witness testimonies suggested that these items were found by the police without the Appellant’s involvement, rendering the evidence unreliable. “There are also glaring inconsistencies in the TIP of the gold chains rendering the proceedings unreliable and inadmissible,” it held.
“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,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Raja Khan v. State Of Chattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 167)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Ashutosh Dubey; Advocates Santosh Chauriha, Saubhagya Chauriha, Rajshri A. Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan, H.B. Dubey, Shohaib Alvi, Ruchika Sharma, Amit P Shahi, Amit Kumar, Mayur Khandelwal and Rohan Sharma
Respondent: Advocates Prerna Dhall, Shivam Ganeshia, M N Gopinadh, Karishma Rajput and Akansha Singh; AOR Prashant Singh
