Mere Recovery Of Currency Notes Without Nexus To Crime Cannot Be Treated As Incriminating Circumstance: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with a murder case, where the prosecution had relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including recoveries and call detail records.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria, while examining the evidentiary record, observed: “mere recovery of currency notes, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing a clear nexus between the said amount and the crime, would not by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance against the appellant”.

Thus, the Bench further stated that in the case at hand, “the said circumstance was wrongly treated to be incriminating by the trial Court as the recovery itself is doubtful and additionally, the mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute incriminating evidence in the absence of corroborative evidence”.

Background

According to the prosecution's case, the accused persons were alleged to have committed the murder of a woman inside her residence during the night intervening between two dates in March 2010. The incident came to light after a report was lodged with the police alleging that unknown persons had entered the house, inflicted fatal injuries upon the deceased, and removed a large sum of cash kept in an almirah.

During the course of the investigation, suspicion turned towards the husband of the deceased and subsequently towards the present appellant. Based on disclosure statements allegedly made during interrogation, the investigating officer claimed to have recovered a blood-stained shirt and a sum of ₹46,000 from the appellant’s residence. Call detail records were also relied upon to suggest frequent contact between the accused persons around the time of the incident.

Following the trial, the trial court convicted the accused persons of murder and causing the disappearance of evidence. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court. The present appeal was thereafter filed before the Supreme Court through legal aid.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court noted at the outset that the prosecution's case against the appellant rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. In such cases, the Court reiterated that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and must form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused while excluding every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.

Examining the recovery of currency notes allegedly made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant, the Court found serious discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. Although the investigating officer stated that ₹46,000 had been recovered, the currency notes produced before the court were found to total ₹46,145. The Court held that this inconsistency cast a serious doubt on the very factum of recovery. It further observed that even assuming recovery had been effected, mere possession of currency notes, without clear evidence linking the money to the alleged offence, could not by itself constitute an incriminating circumstance.

The Court then examined the recovery of a blood-stained shirt allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of the incident. It found the recovery to be unreliable and inherently improbable, observing that the accused had remained free for several days after the occurrence and could easily have destroyed or washed the shirt if he intended to conceal evidence.

The Bench also noted that the prosecution failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the seized articles sent for forensic examination. Discrepancies between the testimony of police witnesses and entries in the Malkhana register created serious doubts regarding the safekeeping and movement of the sealed articles before their dispatch to the forensic laboratory.

In this context, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the integrity of the chain of custody necessary for relying on the forensic report. Without such proof, the forensic report itself lost evidentiary value.

The Bench also addressed the reliance placed by the prosecution on call detail records purportedly showing frequent communication between the accused persons. The Court held that electronic evidence in the form of call detail records can be admitted only upon compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.

In the present case, the prosecution had not produced the statutory certificate required under the provision. Consequently, the call detail records were held to be inadmissible in evidence.

Upon evaluating the three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, recovery of currency notes, recovery of the shirt, and call detail records, the Court held that none of them had been proved in accordance with the law. Even taken collectively, these circumstances failed to form a complete and unbroken chain of evidence capable of establishing the guilt of the appellant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances connecting the appellant to the alleged offence. The Court held that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was either doubtful, inadmissible, or insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court directed that the appellant, who was in custody, be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Cause Title: Pooranmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 217)

Click here to read/download Judgment