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

Supreme Court: Extra Judicial confession of Accused Absolving Himself & Incriminating Co-Accused Not Reliable

 PW3 on the other hand speaks not of a confession but an exculpatory statement made by A1 that it was A2 and A3 who killed the deceased. PW12 and PW14, two other witnesses who spoke of the extra-judicial confession also spoke in tandem with what PW3 stated. The exculpatory statement made absolving himself and accusing the co-accused, by its very nature is unreliable. It cannot be put against the other accused, for no cross examination being provided to them, of the one who made that statement. It cannot also incriminate the person who made the statement since there is no element of confession in the recital as spoken of by three witnesses, as against one.

11. It is also of relevant import that PW8 specifically spoke of a

mob having detained A1 and A2 and PW8 having taken A1 aside

to speak to him, when he made the confession in the presence of

PW3; thus again raising a suspicion of whether PW12 and PW14

were privy to the statement made by A1. The extra-judicial

confession by its very nature being a weak piece of evidence has

not at all been proved in the present case. In any event, the

statement is made when the two accused were detained by a

mob, on the accusation of murder. Obviously, there is

considerable pressure put on the detained persons, who could

have spoken, on undue duress or under threat of violence. In

fact, the records indicate that after arrest, when A1&2 were taken for medical examination, they had injuries on their body, which again cuts at the root of credibility of the statement made; which anyway has doubtful standing as a confession.

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.

Print Page