S. 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Of Weapon Meaningless Without Proof Linking It To Crime : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has set aside the murder conviction, after finding that the prosecution's recovery of evidence based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was riddled with inconsistencies, hostile witnesses, and a lack of forensic linkage.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that mere recovery of the evidence intrinsic to the commission of a crime based on the disclosure statements would not be sufficient for conviction, unless the recovery process is legally reliable, thereby meeting the standards required under Section 27.

The case arose from the alleged murder, where the Trial Court had convicted the appellant, and his conviction was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness to the crime. A crucial component of the case was the alleged recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27, i.e., a blood-stained axe and clothes recovered from the appellant's house pursuant to disclosure statements, and a driving licence allegedly recovered from the crime scene.

Notably, a co-accused was acquitted by the Trial Court itself despite similar recovery evidence against him.

Against the conviction, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies and hostile witness testimony.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the prosecution failed to establish any credible link between the blood found on the axe and the deceased. The Court further noted that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the hair recovered from the axe belonged to the deceased.

“…(i) the blood group of either the deceased or of the blood present on the weapons or clothes was not determined; (ii) though it was observed the hair present on the axes was similar in morphological and microscopical characteristics to the hair recovered from the spot, no conclusive opinion was given if it belonged to the deceased; and (iii) there was no definitive link made between the recovered axes and the deceased's injuries.”, the court observed.

Further, the Court noted serious procedural lapses in the preparation of seizure memos, as the signatures of witnesses were not obtained at the place and time of recovery. Instead, they were taken later, even while the witness was travelling elsewhere.

“It is evident that the witnesses have either turned hostile or not corroborated the case of prosecution on any material particulars in relation to the recoveries beyond just admitting their signatures. Given that both accused continuously remained in judicial custody throughout the trial, the said hostility and non-corroboration can also not be attributed to any influence or tampering on their part. The recovery circumstance, therefore, remains legally tenuous.”, the court observed.

In light of the aforesaid, the Court found the conviction to be bad, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Circumstantial Evidence – Witness Testimony – Related vs. Interested Witnesses - The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence pointing solely to the guilt of the accused - noted that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof - Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between a "related" witness and an "interested" witness - A witness is "interested" only when they derive some benefit from the result of the litigation, such as having a motive to falsely implicate the accused due to prior enmity - The testimony of an interested witness, without independent corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction. [Paras 18, 19]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Principle of Parity – When there is similar or identical evidence against two accused ascribing them a similar role, the Court cannot convict one and acquit the other - The Principle of Parity dictates that Criminal Courts should decide like cases alike to avoid discrimination - Since the recovery evidence against the acquitted co-accused was nearly identical to that against the appellant, the appellant was entitled to the same benefit of doubt. [Para 24]

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapons – Supre,e Court observed that the mere presence of human blood on a seized weapon is insufficient for conviction if the blood group is not determined and no definitive link is made between the weapon and the injuries sustained by the deceased - The recovery was further weakened by the fact that seizure witnesses turned hostile or admitted they did not sign the memos at the time of recovery. [Relied on Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984 INSC 121; Agniraj & Ors. vs. State through Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB-CID (2025 INSC 774); Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat (2023 INSC 829); State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki & Anr. (1981 INSC 94); Paras 15-30]

Cause Title: GAUTAM SATNAMI VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Ms. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv. Mr. Vishvanath Agarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Praneet Pranav, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR