Supreme Court: Recovery Of A Weapon From An Open Place Accessible To All Not Reliable U/ S of 27 Evidence Act

27.1. This Court has, in various judgments, clarified this position. Illustratively, in Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/1259/2021 : (2021) 13 SCC 716 it was observed:

One of the alleged recoveries is from the room where deceased Asgari used to sleep. The other two recoveries are from open field, just behind the house of deceased Shaukeen Khan i.e. the place of incident. It could thus be seen that the recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could be placed on such recoveries.

(Emphasis supplied)

 27.2. Also, in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. MANU/SC/0211/2023 : (2023) 6 SCC 605 the Court held:

20. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement of the Accused as required Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law. However, this circumstance which, in our view, could not have been used, has been employed by the High Court to seek corroboration to the extra- judicial confession.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2011

Decided On: 06.11.2023

Manjunath and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1212/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Delhi HC : Under which circumstances the court should not release an accused on bail on the ground of parity?

The plea of parity advanced on behalf of the Applicant, by drawing reference to the grant of bail to co-accused Rahul Gupta @ Tyagi and Amar @ Kanha, also does not persuade this Court. The distinction in their roles is both apparent and material. While the co-accused are alleged to have merely restrained the deceased, the Applicant is attributed with the direct and fatal act of stabbing him. Furthermore, the orders granting bail to co-accused Rahul Gupta @ Tyagi and Amar @ Kanha, were premised on the fact that the eyewitnesses had not supported the Prosecution’s case during trial. While this circumstance may have weighed in favour of the co-accused at the stage of their bail applications, it is pertinent to note that no recovery of any incriminating material was effected from them. In contrast, the Applicant has led to the recovery of the knife alleged to have been used in the offence, as well as blood-stained clothes, both of which, as per the FSL report, have been linked to the deceased. Therefore, the considerations which extended to the co-accused, cannot enure to the benefit of the Applicant. The principle of parity, therefore, finds no application in the present case. {Para 8}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLN. 2471/2025

ASHU @ ATTA . Vs STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Author: SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

Pronounced on: 19th August, 2025.

Print Page

Can Partial Circumstantial Evidence Sustain a Criminal Conviction? A Legal Analysis

  The court concludes that last seen theory, extrajudicial confession is not proved. Recovery of weapon under section 27 proved and court comes to conclusion that the answer given under 313 CPC is false. Whether accused can be held guilty?

An examination of conviction possibilities when key circumstantial evidence fails to meet judicial standards

Introduction

Print Page