Supreme Court: What are pre-requisite for proving recovery of article from accused and identification of recovered article?

It is an admitted case as evident from record

that the solitary circumstance relied upon by the

prosecution to connect the accused-respondent with

the crime was the recovery of the umbrella made in

furtherance of his disclosure statement recorded by

the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act. The High Court held that the said

umbrella was concealed by the accused-respondent

in an attempt to destroy evidence of the crime, and

accordingly, affirmed his conviction for the offence

punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. However,

the sentence awarded by the trial Court for the said

offence was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for

seven years to rigorous imprisonment for three years,

along with fine and default stipulation. {Para 26}

27. The factum of recovery of the umbrella, recorded

vide seizure memo (Ex. 1), was sought to be proved

through the evidence of the Investigating Officer,

Abhishek Bodo (PW-19) Hereinafter, referred 

to as “Investigating Officer”. Upon a perusal of the

testimony of the said witness (PW-19), we find that

the very arrest of the accused-respondent in the

present case is shrouded in a cloud of doubt.

28. Insofar as the recovery of the umbrella is

concerned, the Investigating Officer proved the

disclosure statement of the accused-respondent as

Ex. 19. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, a

black-coloured umbrella was purportedly recovered

by the Investigating Officer on 14th June, 2017, upon

being pointed out by the accused-respondent. Thus,

there is a significant gap of approximately 14 days

between the date of the incident and the recovery of

the umbrella.

29. It also emerges from the evidence that the

Investigating Officer deposed that he summoned the

family members of the deceased to the police station

and got the umbrella identified by them. It is further

apparent from the evidence on record that the

umbrella did not bear any specific or distinctive

features so as to be conclusively linked to the

deceased.

30. The identification procedure conducted by the

Investigating Officer, i.e., by simply calling the family

members of the deceased to the police station and

asking them to identify the umbrella as belonging to

the deceased, is in clear contravention of the

established procedure for identification of articles.

Ordinarily, the recovered article ought to have been

sealed, and the test identification proceedings should

have been conducted in the presence of a Magistrate

so as to make the procedure of identification

unimpeachable.

31. The Investigating Officer’s evidence referred to

supra does not specify compliance with either of the

aforesaid requirements, both of which are absolutely

necessary to hold that the seizure of an umbrella was

proved by cogent and reliable evidence.

32. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that neither

was the recovery of the umbrella proved as per law

nor does the identification thereof inspire confidence

so as to link the same either to the accusedrespondent

or to the crime. Furthermore, the

significant gap of 14 days in effecting the recovery

creates a doubt on the sanctity of the procedure of

recovery.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 8846 of 2025)

THE STATE OF ASSAM  Vs  MOINUL HAQUE @ MONU 

Author: Mehta, J.

Dated: APRIL 16, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 386.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page