Supreme Court: Mere recovery of currency notes from accused cannot constitute incriminating evidence in absence of corroborative evidence

 I. RECOVERY OF CURRENCY NOTES

29. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that there is a grave discrepancy regarding the exact amount of currency notes recovered by the Investigating Officer (PW.22) purportedly in furtherance of the disclosure statement made by the Appellant-Pooranmal.

30. Whilst in the examination-in-chief, the Investigating Officer (PW.22) deposed that the Appellant-Pooranmal furnished an information Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act [Proviso to Section 23 of the BSA] regarding receipt of the amount of Rs. 46,000/- (Ex. P-44) from Ladu Lal pursuant to a plan to commit the murder of Smt. Aruna.

31. The Investigating Officer (PW.22) further stated that in consequence of the said disclosure, as also another disclosure pertaining to the shirt allegedly worn at the time of the incident, the Appellant-Pooranmal led the police party to his residence and got recovered a shirt (suspected to be blood-stained) kept in an iron box. The said recovery was reduced into writing vide memo (Ex. P-9), and the shirt was sealed at the spot. Further as per the information given by the Appellant-Pooranmal, a sum of Rs. 46,000/- was recovered from his house and was seized vide memo (Ex. P-13). The said amount was also sealed at the spot.

32. In cross-examination, the Investigating Officer (PW.22) admitted that though on the chit of material exhibit (Ex. P-52), the currency notes were mentioned as Rs. 46,000/-, but when the notes were counted in Court, it was noticed that the amount was Rs. 46,145/-. The Investigating Officer (PW.22) admitted that there was no mention of these extra Rs. 145 on the packet marked as (Ex. P-52).

33. Thus, the very factum of recovery of the currency notes comes under a grave cloud of doubt. That apart, 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-Pooranmal. Thus, 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 absence of corroborative evidence.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2026 

Decided On: 10.03.2026

Pooranmal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 217,MANU/SC/0213/2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page