Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction Citing Weak Circumstantial Evidence

In the case of Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, thereby addresses a criminal appeal challenging a High Court decision that upheld the appellant's conviction for offenses under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Brief of the case: One Neeraj Yadav was murdered and his body was found in a pond nearby. Accused Raja Khan was arrested and on charges of the murder, and allegations were levelled against him that motivated by a monetary dispute Raja Kahn murdered Neeraj. The Trial Court convicted Raja Khan primarily considering the circumstantial evidence and the recovery and seizure of two gold chains of the deceased from the rooftop of the house of the accused Raja Khan. The Trial Court convicted him of life imprisonment and fine u/s 302 a decision.

The decision of the Trial Court was challenged in the High Court which was affirmed.

Supreme Court analyses several key observations regarding circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Apex Court noted that the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye-witness or judicially admissible confession.

The Apex Court, while referencing to its earlier judgments, further reiterated the five golden principles for circumstantial evidence held in case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (Click to Download), wherein it emphasized that the circumstances must be fully established, be consistent with guilt, conclusive, and exclude every other hypothesis but guilt.

The Court emphasized the importance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as an exception to Sections 25 and 26, which otherwise bar confessions made to a police officer.

The court stated that only the portion of the information that distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible. The discovery includes the object, its location, and the accused's knowledge of its existence.

The court referenced Bodhraj Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (Click to Download) regarding Section 27 of the Evidence Act, noting that the statement made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. The information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.

The Court found serious doubts regarding the prosecution's version of the disclosure made by the Appellant-accused and the recoveries made as a result. The testimony of Tirath Dhruv (PW-22) was questioned because he admitted to signing papers at the police station without reading them.

The court found glaring inconsistencies with respect to how the gold chains were recovered from the house of the Appellant-accused and noted that the presence of the Appellant-accused at the time of the said recovery is itself doubtful.

The court referenced Varun Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan (Click to Download) and Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan (Click to Download), holding 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.

The court also found glaring inconsistencies in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the gold chains. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the Appellant-accused. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan
Case: Raja Khan vs State of Chattisgarh
Judgment Date: 07-02-2025