'Arrest Memo Mentioned Murder Offence Even Before Body Was Recovered' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittals

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 25) upheld the acquittal of four accused persons in a murder case, holding that the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of one of the accused was surrounded by serious irregularities and could not be safely relied upon to sustain a conviction.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Rajasthan High Court's acquittal, upon noting that the recovery of the dead body was doubtful, as the police prematurely treated the missing report filed by the complainant as a murder case.

The case arose from the disappearance and death of one Ashok Kumar Sharma, a Bolero Jeep taxi driver, who went missing on April 26, 2007. The prosecution alleged that the accused made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the deceased's body from a dry well.

However, the High Court, while re-appreciating the evidence, found multiple circumstances casting serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged recovery of the body. One of the major irregularities noted by the High Court was that the arrest memo prepared before the recovery of the dead body already mentioned offences under Sections 302, 394, and 201 IPC.

The High Court observed that this indicated that the investigating agency had prematurely treated the matter as a murder case even before the body was recovered.

Agreeing with the High Court's analysis, the judgment authored by Justice Varale questioned the prosecution about its premature treatment of a missing complaint case as a murder case, when the recovery of the dead body was made on 29/04/2007 but the arrest memo prepared on 28/04/2007 already contained offence of Section 302 IPC:

“…at the time of arrest of accused Balraj @ Tiloo police was not aware that the deceased had been killed as PW1 merely filed a missing report, then how come on the arrest memo filed on the very same date it was mentioned that the accused was arrested for offence under Sections 302, 394 and 201 of IPC.”

Further, the Court found credence to the testimony of PW 5, an independent witness, who testified that the police had already visited the Well, from where the body was recovered, before the recording of the disclosure statements of the accused. The judgment authored by Justice Varale found this to be a significant lapse in the investigation as the recovery was not done after the recording of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

“Secondly, the testimony of P.W.5 Basant Singh, an independent witness, materially undermines the prosecution case. PW5 in his testimony stated that police had already visited and examined well from where the dead body was discovered on 28.04.2007 itself, however since the boring machine was not available, the dead body was recovered on 29.04.2007.”, the court noted.

Additionally, the Court noted that since the prosecution's case entirely rested on the last-seen theory, it cannot alone sustain a conviction unless corroborated by other material evidences. [See Manoj @ Munna V. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1230]

Since the prosecution's case was also rested on the recovery of the materials, the Court found it to be insignificant, as no Test Identification Parade of such recovered materials was conducted, as held in Thammaraya & Anr. v. The State Of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 157.

In view of the aforesaid, since the prosecutions failed to prove the unbroken chain of circumstances against the accused, leaving no inference other than the guilt of the accused, hence the complainant's appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Cause Title: PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 543

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. K.L.Janjani, Adv.(Argued by) Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kailash J. Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G.(Argued by) Ms. Shagufa Khan, Adv. Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhananjai Shekhwat, Adv. Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Dashrath Singh, Adv. Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR