Reinforcing Strict Standards for Circumstantial Evidence and Recoveries Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 167) revisits fundamental principles governing the treatment of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, especially when relying on alleged recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”) and the “last seen” theory.

In this case, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court for offenses under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). The conviction stemmed from purported confessional statements leading to recoveries, as well as circumstantial evidence indicating that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. The Supreme Court, however, scrutinized the quality of those recoveries, the reliability of the last-seen testimony, and the chain of circumstantial evidence, ultimately setting aside the conviction and ordering the release of the appellant.

This commentary provides a detailed discussion of the Court’s rationale, the relevant precedents, the evidentiary and procedural requirements, and the impact of this decision on future cases relying on circumstantial evidence and Section 27 disclosures.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
• The Court found significant inconsistencies in the manner of supposed recoveries—specifically the stone, “gandasa,” and jewelry alleged to belong to the deceased.
• The last-seen evidence was deemed unreliable in light of contradictions and lack of corroboration.
• The Court held that the prosecution had not conclusively established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as required in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
• The appellant was granted the benefit of doubt and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) 2 SCC 71: The Court reaffirmed the principle that, in circumstantial evidence cases, the chain must be unbroken and consistent with no other plausible explanation than the guilt of the accused.
2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: Identified the five “golden principles” of circumstantial evidence, requiring proof that (i) the circumstances are fully established, (ii) they point only to the guilt of the accused, (iii) they are conclusive, (iv) they exclude other hypotheses, and (v) form a continuous chain.
3. Delhi Administration v. Bal Krishan & Ors. (1972) 4 SCC 659: Discussed the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, clarifying the limited admissibility of confessional statements made to a police officer when they lead to the discovery of new facts.
4. Mohmed Inayatullah v. State Of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828: Reiterated that only the portion of the accused’s statement that distinctly relates to the relevant discovery is admissible.
5. Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 12 SCC 545 and Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724: Emphasized that recoveries prepared or signed in a police station, rather than at the actual scene, lose their evidentiary sanctity.
6. Bodhraj Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45: Clarified that the foundational concept of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is “confirmation by subsequent events,” meaning the prosecution must prove the precise information given by the accused that led to the discovery, not merely the recovery itself.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Limited Admissibility of Recoveries:
The Court reiterated that recoveries must strictly conform to the procedural requirements of Section 27, which partially lifts the ban on the admissibility of confessions in police custody. The statements must lead directly to new discoveries, and only the portion of the statement related to that discovery is admissible. In this case, the supporting witness testimony revealed serious doubt over whether the accused’s confession actually led to the discovery or whether the items were located at the behest of the police themselves.

2. Inconsistencies in Documentation and Witness Accounts:
The main panch witness (PW-22) admitted signing documents in the police station without witnessing the actual seizure or reading the statements. The diver who allegedly retrieved the murder weapon from the pond testified that the police directed him, without referencing any role by the accused. The Supreme Court found these irregularities fundamentally undermined the credibility of the so-called disclosures.

3. Unreliable Last-Seen Theory:
The prosecution attempted to rely on last-seen testimony to place the appellant with the deceased shortly before the death. However, the Court concluded that key witnesses offered conflicting accounts of when and where the deceased was last seen. Significantly, neither the times nor the locations were consistent across testimonies, causing the Court to doubt the validity of this circumstantial plank.

4. Gold Chain Identification and TIP Proceedings:
The Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the two gold chains allegedly belonging to the deceased was marked by contradictions. Some witnesses indicated only two chains were displayed during the identification, and there was no prior record of distinguishing marks. Moreover, the wife of the deceased purportedly received the chains in advance of the formal identification. These discrepancies led the Court to reject the TIP evidence as inconclusive.

5. Failure to Prove “Motive”:
Though the prosecution suggested a financial dispute between the appellant and the deceased, this was insufficiently substantiated. Mere allegations of borrowed money did not carry probative weight in the absence of corroborative documentation or testimony.

C. Impact

This ruling serves as a cautionary note emphasizing the inviolable obligation of the prosecution to build a complete, consistent, and unbroken evidentiary chain in circumstantial cases. Future prosecutions will likely pay close heed to the meticulous requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, ensuring no step of the discovery process appears tainted. Additionally, forensic procedures for test identification must strictly follow guidelines to be admitted as credible evidence. Overall, this decision reaffirms entrenched standards while intensifying scrutiny over investigative lapses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that relies on inference, rather than direct observation, to connect the accused to the crime. Courts require such evidence to form a complete chain, leaving no reasonable doubt that someone else could be responsible.

2. “Last Seen” Theory: In criminal jurisprudence, if an accused is the last person known to be with the victim before the victim’s death, an inference of guilt can be drawn unless satisfactorily explained. However, this must be backed by reliable, corroborated evidence of time and place.

3. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: A provision that allows a small exception to the rule against admitting confessional statements made to the police. Specifically, the part of the statement leading to the discovery of a new fact or object is admissible, but only if the information is shown to come directly from the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh clarifies and reaffirms the strict standards that must be observed in circumstantial evidence cases, particularly concerning the “last seen” theory and alleged recoveries under Section 27. Discrepancies in witness accounts, procedural lapses in drafting and signing seizure memos, and questionable test identification parades all contributed to a breakdown in the prosecutorial chain of evidence. As a result, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and underscored the principle that any inadequacies in the proof of guilt must weigh in favor of the accused. This decision will act as a critical reference point for courts, law enforcement agencies, and legal practitioners handling circumstantial evidence and confessional recoveries.