Supreme Court: Whether the court can rely on recovery of object from open space if object recovered was not concealed?

 Now we come to the recoveries made allegedly with the aid of the accused. The dead body was found in a field, an open space with free access to anybody. The stone and glass piece are said to have been recovered from the place of occurrence itself, albeit with the aid of the accused. We have serious doubts about the recoveries having the status of a recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but for the time being we would assume it to be so. A stone, weighing 1-1.5 kg and a glass piece were said to have been recovered, on the showing of the accused, specifically A1 and A2. The seizure list as seen from the records does not indicate the specific place from which it was recovered other than stating that it is ‘from the PO at the paddy land of Jogesh Roy’. The learned State Counsel would argue that though the paddy field had free access, it was thick with stalks and there could definitely be a concealment; the growth not borne out from the evidence. We do not for a moment doubt that there could be concealment even in a public place or in a field with thick vegetation, but there is no statement recorded from the accused as to such a concealment having been effected and then the police having been led to the location and the material object recovered from the place of concealment. Recital in the seizure list is only that ‘on being shown and certified by accused 1 and 2’. Concealment and its knowledge, revealed from the statement of the accused, is the crucial ingredient of Section 27 which can lead to that being used in a criminal trial, any other confession to a police officer being excluded as self-incriminating. {Para 12}

13. Further, the said recoveries are/ made on 02.11.2012 and

the same was witnessed by PW5, the Pradhan who had come to

the place of occurrence at the time of the recovery of body, on

31.10.2012 and at the time of recovery, on 02.11.2012. In fact, the

testimony of PW5 is that the signature on the inquest report and

the seizure report are his and it relates to one broken spectacles,

one stone, one gangee and four pairs of sandals and one single

sandal. It is not clear from the testimony of PW5 as to which were

seized by the police on 31.10.2012 and what was recovered on

02.11.2012. The recovery thus has no clarity and more

importantly the accused pointing out the concealed objects or

even their presence at the time was not deposed to by PW5.

14. The recovery on 02.11.2012, as evidenced from the seizure

report, was with respect to four items; the stone, a broken glass

and two spectacles, one of which was broken, not testified to by

PW5. The other objects were seized at the time of inquest from

the place of occurrence from where the body was recovered.

Yet again as we already observed there is no statement taken of

the accused of a concealment and the recoveries made do not

qualify to be one under Section 27. The stains on the stone found

at the place of occurrence and the serology report of it being

human blood, hence, is of no consequence.

15. We also have to observe that the seizure is said to have

been made in the presence of both the accused without

indicating as to who out of the two revealed the concealment. As

a matter of fact, PW16, the Investigating Officer, testifies that

both the accused A1 and A2 informed him that if they are taken to

the place of occurrence they would recover the stone and

broken glass with which the deceased was murdered and also

the motorcycle of Samir; the last of which we will deal with a little

later. Here we have to emphasize that PW5, the witness to the

recovery, categorically stated that neither the stone nor the glass

piece was produced in Court and hence not confronted to the

witness. More pertinently the alleged weapons of assault were

not shown to the Doctor to elicit his opinion as to whether the

said objects could have caused the injuries found on the dead

body. The recoveries are of no avail and do not form a clinching

incriminating circumstance against the accused.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 2507 of 2026

Papan Sarkar @ Pranab Vs  State of West Bengal

Author: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 528

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the court can convict an accused if Skull Superimposition Technique is used For Identification Of Dead Body of victim?

  The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is identification of the body. It may be noted that the corpus when found, was in a highly-decomposed condition. Skeletal remains were found after almost 5 months from the date of the incident of the deceased having gone missing. The identification, therefore, was done by getting the skull super-imposition test done through the PW-16, forensic expert. In Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu4, this Court has explained that though identification of the deceased through superimposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence, however the courts generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as the sole incriminating circumstances, given its fallibility, and the superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible. In the present case, since the super-imposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the super-imposition test. It is true that in the case based on circumstantial evidence, if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the conviction could be recorded even if the corpus is not found, but when as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else. {Para 13}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2017

S. KALEESWARAN Vs STATE 

Coram: BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

Dated: 03.11.2022

Print Page

Whether accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt if dead body is not recovered?

 Sevaka Perumal and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
(1991) 3 SCC 471, was also a case where the corpus delicti was not
found yet conviction was upheld observing:
“5….In a trial for murder it is not an absolute
necessity or an essential ingredient to establish
corpus delicti. The fact of death of the deceased must
be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in

some cases may not be possible to be traced or
recovered. Take for instance that a murder was
committed and the dead body was thrown into
flowing tidal river or stream or burnt out. It is
unlikely that the dead body may be recovered. If
recovery of the dead body, therefore, is an absolute
necessity to convict an accused, in many a case the
accused would manage to see that the dead body is
destroyed etc. and would afford a complete immunity
to the guilty from being punished and would escape
even when the offence of murder is proved. What,
therefore, is required to base a conviction for an
offence of murder is that there should be reliable and
acceptable evidence that the offence of murder, like
any other factum of death was committed and it
must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence,
although the dead body may not be traced…”

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1070 OF 2017

SANJAY RAJAK Vs  THE STATE OF BIHAR 

NAVIN SINHA, J.
Dated:July 22, 2019.

Print Page

Whether recovery of dead body from deserted building will amount to recovery from open space?

Next significant circumstance against appellant is
that pursuant to information given by accused Arif under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to dead body
(Exhibit P-65) and similar information given by accused Sunil
Panchal(Exhibit P-66), the police immediately reached the
place where from they recovered dead body of Abhishek vide
Exhibit P-17 at 8.00 P.M. on 14.03.2005 itself which heither to
remained untraceable. We are not inclined to countenance
the argument that since recovery of dead body was made
from open place, no new fact can be held to have been
discovered at the instance of the accused. Rajendra
ojha(P.W.24), the investigating officer has made it clear that
it was a deserted multi storied building, which normally no
one visits. Such unfurnished multi storied deserted building
can by no stretch of reasoning be descried as an open place.
Moreover, as per the post mortem report, duration of death
was 72 to 120 hours. The fact that no one could notice the
dead body lying there even for so long, only reinforces the
conclusion that the dead body could be recovered only on the
basis of information furnished by the accused under Section
27 of the Evidence Act. Solely because information memos,
arrest memos and information memo and seizure memo of
motorcycle and STD slip mentioned offence under Section 302
IPC, which were prepared an hour or so prior to preparation
of recovery memo of dead body at 8.00 P.M. on 14.03.2005
could not render this significant stage of investigation asdoubtful. On the information given by the accused
immediately after their arrest, if the police had come to
know about murder of abducted boy and mentioned offence
under Section 302 IPC in the aforesaid memos, the same was
quite natural and there was nothing unnatural in what the
police did at that time.
The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691(supra) has
observed that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent
events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any
fact is discovered in search made on the strength of any
information obtained from the accused, such a discovery is
guarantee that the information supplied by the accused is
true. The information might be confessional or non
inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact, it
become reliable information. Therefore, the law permits
such information to be used as evidence by restricting the
admissible portion to the minimum. Relying on the judgment
of Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottayya Vs. Emperor, AIR
1947 PC 67, the Supreme Court held that “fact discovered”
envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the
object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it,
but the information given must relate distinctly to the effect.
Minor discrepancies in the investigation cannot be
a reason to discard the entire prosecution case. The Supreme
Court in State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil & Another,
(2001) 1 SCC 652 held that mere absence of independent
witness when investigating officer recorded the statement of
the accused and the article was recovered pursuant thereto is
not sufficient ground to discard the evidence. Evidence of
police officer regarding the recovery at the instance of the
accused should ordinarily be believed. Official acts of police
should be presumed to be regularly performed. Archaic
notion to approach actions of police with initial distrust
should be discarded. Even if, for the present we do not
believe the factum of recovery of silver chain and silver
amulet at the instance of the accused-appellant Sunil
Panchal, because as per Niranjan Gautam(P.W.13), police
photographer, he saw them lying on the floor near the dead
body on 14.03.2005 and took pictures of the same which are
Exhibits P-28, P-32 and P-33, there is otherwise enough
evidence on record which points to the guilt of the accusedappellants
and none else. Since discovery of the place where
the dead body was found was made pursuant to information
given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
which eventually led to recovery of dead body of the
abducted boy, recovery of silver chain and silver amulet from
that place then even, as per testimony of Niranjan
Gautam(P.W.13) relied by the defence, could also be read
against the accused-appellants. Moreover, cricket bat was
also recovered at the instance of accused Arif vide Exhibit P-
59. Mere non-mention of these articles in the missing person
report and first information report may not be a reason to
hold that they did not belong to the deceased, particularly
when they have been identified by his father, Subroto
Mukherjee(P.W.3) in the proceedings conducted by HariMohan Gupta(P.W.15). 

REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR.

D.B. CRIMINIAL APPEAL NO. 151/2007

SUNIL PANCHAL VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03.06.2016
MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS
Citation: 2016 CRLJ 4238 Raj

Print Page