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

Whether trial court is justified in convicting Appellant only on basis of corroborative evidence particularly when there is no substantive evidence?

Criminal - Conviction - Appeal against - Sections 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 3, 4, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Present appeal filed to challenge judgment of conviction passed against appellant herein for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act - Whether trial court is justified in convicting Appellant only on basis of corroborative evidence particularly when there is no substantive evidence - Held, statement under Section 164 of CrPC is not substantive evidence - Same can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict witness vis-a-vis statement made in court - Victim's reiterated statement can be used for corroboration under Section 157 of Evidence Act - If there are discrepancies between statement and oral evidence, it can be used for contradiction by defense - Likewise, if victim recants statement, it can be used for cross-examination by prosecution, as done in this case - Judicial officer's evidence cannot be relied upon to convict accused, as witness did not support prosecution's case on crucial points - Trial court cannot solely convict accused based on presumption -Presumptions only apply when foundational facts are established, such as victim's age or commission of acts specified under POCSO Act - In this case, foundational facts are not proven - Evidence from Section 164 of CrPC statements and medical case papers cannot be considered for drawing inferences about accused's involvement - Trial court erred in relying on presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act - Impugned judgment of conviction set aside - Appeal allowed.[68],[74],[75],[88],[89],[90]

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2019

Decided On: 09.05.2024

Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3173/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Evidence of Hand-writing Expert must be Corroborated by either Direct or Circumstantial Evidence

 It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the

hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that

such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or

circumstantial evidence. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(1980) 1 SCC 704, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“4. …….True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority

that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the

opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the

opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of

expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses

— the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses — but because all human judgment

is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of

observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of

conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science,

the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the

science is less developed and imperfect. The science of

identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the

risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other

hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so

perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from

doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule

and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case,

howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons.

It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial

suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion

has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him.

An expert deposes and not decides. His duty “is to furnish the

Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy

of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own

independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the

facts proved in evidence (Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v.

Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in

his evidence).”

5. …….

6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence

Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to

identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in

questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant

fact……… So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon

before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there

need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a

court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be

no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the

opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the

sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court

while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to

proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all

other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2020

PADUM KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Dated:January 14, 2020.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in case of unregistered family settlement?

 Even though recitals in the Ex.D22 is to the effect of
relinquishment of right in items No.1 and 2, Ex.D22 could be taken
as family arrangements/settlements. There is no provision of law
requiring family settlements to be reduced to writing and

registered, though when reduced to writing the question of
registration may arise. Binding family arrangements dealing with
immovable property worth more than rupees hundred can be made
orally and when so made, no question of registration arises. If,
however, it is reduced to the form of writing with the purpose that
the terms should be evidenced by it, it required registration and
without registration it is inadmissible; but the said family
arrangement can be used as corroborative piece of evidence for
showing or explaining the conduct of the parties.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5805 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.27268 of 2008
SUBRAYA M.N. 
Versus
VITTALA M.N. & ORS
Citation:(2016) 8 SCC705

Print Page

When corroboration is not required to prove intimate facts about spouses in matrimonial matters?

As noticed above, in matrimonial cases, the approach of the courts is
different from that adopted in other cases. In Suman Singh (supra), the 
Division Bench while relying upon A v. B (supra) observed that the nature
of proof required in matrimonial matter is different, considering the fact that
matters relating to the private intimate life of the parties are not supposed to
be known to other persons, and no corroboration can be expected in such
cases. To seek a corroboration to a fact pertaining to health of the intimate
relationship - which belongs to the sacred and secret precincts of marital life,
and which are known only to the spouses to the exclusion of all others,
would amount to shutting one’s eye towards the facts of life and reality.
Corroboration, therefore, to the version of either spouse on such aspects, can

hardly be expected to come from any other independent source.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 Judgment delivered on: 22.03.2016
 MAT. APP. 68/2012
SA ...Appellant
 versus
AA ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
Citation: 2016 (3) ALLMR(JOURNAL)60

Print Page

Whether Statement of victim recorded U/S 164 of crpc can be read in evidence as per S 33 of Indian evidence Act?

For the application of Section 33 Indian Evidence Act, it is mandatory that the adversary must have the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness, but at the time of recording statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C, there vests no right or opportunity with the adversary to cross-examine the witness. Hence, Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act is not applicable in the case at hand meaning thereby that we cannot legally read the statement of victim recorded u/s 164,Cr.P.C on the strength of Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act at least. However, the statement of witness recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C, itself bears a corroborative value.

Jharkhand High Court

Barju Sah vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 August, 2015

Print Page

When file noting can be used as supporting/corroborative material?

In this context, the reliance placed upon some of the decisions of this Court by Mr. Krishnan Venugopal learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent needs to be considered. The learned senior counsel for the first respondent relied upon the decisions reported in Sethi Auto Service Station (supra) and Shanti Sports Club (supra) for the proposition that 'noting' in the department files do not have sanction of law to be an effective order unless it culminate into an executable order affecting the rights of the parties and only when it reaches the final decision making authority in the department get his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned. There can be no dispute with regard to the said principle stated in the above referred to two decisions. But in the case on hand, we have extensively noted the various sequence of events relating to the factum of surrender effected by M/s. Dalmia to the extent of 130 hectares long prior to 16.04.1999 and an extent of 196.58 hectares in its letter dated 16.04.1999 itself and subsequently by its letter dated 27.03.2001, its desire to sanction the whole of the mining lease covered by M.L.No.2010. We also referred to various communications which emanated from the office of the Director of Mines and Geology confirming acceptance of surrender proposed by M/s. Dalmia which came to an end on 31.01.2002. In the light of the said voluminous correspondence between M/s. Dalmia and the Department of Mines and Geology of the State Government available on record the reference to file noting dated 28.05.2001, by the Director of Mines and Geology, was only an additional supporting material to confirm the act of surrender effected by M/s. Dalmia and its final conclusions as recorded in the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology. We therefore do not find any support for the first respondent by referring to the above two decisions.

Supreme Court of India

M/S Muneer Enterprises Mine ... vs M/S Ramgad Min.&Amp; Mining ... on 12 March, 2015

Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla, Shiva Kirti Singh

Citation;(2015) 5 SCC366

Print Page

Whether one infirm witness can corroborate another infirm witness?

A reference, with regard to the above position of law, may be made to the case of Muluwa, S/o Binda and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [AIR 1976 SC 989], wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows :

"It is elementary that the evidence of an infirm witness does not become reliable merely because it has been corroborated by a number of witnesses of the same brand; for, evidence is to be weighed not counted. Since the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 suffered from the same infirmities as that of Smt. Jugatia, it cannot be said that the trial Judge had no basis, whatsoever, for stigmatising it as unreliable."

(Emphasis is added)

49. Situated thus, it is clear that merely because PW 3, PW 5 and PW 6 have given evidence corroborating each other's evidence, their evidence cannot be made basis for holding them truthful witnesses, when each one of them is a witness, who is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, for, one infirm witness cannot be treated to have corroborated evidence of another infirm witness.

Patna High Court

Manoj Kumar Bharti vs State Of Bihar on 16 February, 2015

Citation;2015 CRLJ(NOC)238 PATNA

Print Page

Whether direct oral evidence shall prevail over corroborative evidence?

 Another submission of learned defence Advocate appearing on behalf of accused that photographs placed on record clearly prove that salwar and underwear of prosecutrix thrown on floor were kept in very orderly manner and one pair of slippers of accused were also kept in orderly manner inside the room clearly prove the case of consent and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that as per Section 59 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, all facts except the contents of documents could be proved by way of direct oral evidence. In present case prosecutrix in her testimony proved beyond reasonable doubt that when accused entered into her room prosecutrix aged 20 years struggled with accused for 10-15 minutes and thereafter accused gagged the mouth of prosecutrix and threw the prosecutrix on bed. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that thereafter accused who was married person removed the salwar of prosecutrix and underwear of prosecutrix who was aged 20 years and who was student at the time of incident and on these facts testimony of prosecutrix remained unrebutted on record. Even accused did not appear in witness box in order to rebut the above said testimony of prosecutrix. Accused did not appear in witness box as a defence witness as required under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in order to rebut testimony of prosecutrix. It is well settled law that photographs are only corroborative evidence in order to prove the facts and it is well settled law that direct oral eye evidence is substantive evidence. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between direct substantial oral evidence and corroborative evidence then direct substantial oral evidence always prevails.

Equivalent Citation: 2015CriLJ1812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 493 of 2009

Decided On: 08.01.2015

 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Vipan Kumar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Sanjay Karol and Piar Singh Rana, JJ.

Print Page