Conviction cannot rest on an unreliable extra-judicial confession and unproved recoveries in a circumstantial case.

The appellant was prosecuted in Sessions Trial No. 489 of 1997 arising from Case Crime No. 31 of 1997, Police Station Huzurpur, Bahraich, for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 IPC.

The deceased, Rambahore, had gone missing on 20 February 1997.

On 19 March 1997, the informant lodged an FIR based on information allegedly conveyed by PW-6 Buddhisagar Mishra, who claimed that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession implicating himself and the co-accused in the murder and concealment of the body.

The dead body was allegedly recovered on 20 March 1997 from beneath sand near a riverbank on the pointing out of the appellant and co-accused Maganpal; the post-mortem found death due to ante-mortem throttling, with the approximate time of death being four weeks earlier.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, with fines and concurrent sentences; the other surviving co-accused were acquitted and proceedings against Maganpal abated upon his death.

The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-6 was voluntary, truthful and sufficiently reliable to sustain conviction?

Whether the alleged recovery of the deceased’s body and clothes pursuant to the appellant’s pointing out was duly proved and admissible as discovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?

Whether, in the absence of an eyewitness, the circumstances proved by the prosecution formed a complete and conclusive chain establishing the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 302 and 201 IPC?

Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and proof of investigation documents through secondary evidence materially undermined the prosecution case?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 201 IPC concerning murder and causing disappearance of evidence, together with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits proof only of that portion of an accused’s custodial disclosure that distinctly relates to a fact thereby discovered.

Applying the principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Court held that every incriminating circumstance must be fully established, consistent only with the accused’s guilt, conclusive in nature, and form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Relying also on Ramu Appa Mahapatra v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 2 SCR 388 and State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180, the Court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession may independently support conviction only when voluntary, truthful, clear and proved through a credible and unbiased witness; corroboration is a rule of prudence, not an absolute legal requirement.

The Court further recognized that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not automatically fatal, but may become material where the prosecution relies on disputed recoveries, disclosure statements and investigation documents.

The Court found the extra-judicial confession unreliable because PW-6 was the informant’s brother-in-law, had no demonstrated relationship of confidence or authority vis-à-vis the appellant, and offered no plausible explanation why the appellant would travel to him nearly a month after the murder and confess the crime.

The alleged recovery of the body was also not satisfactorily proved: no recovery memo of the dead body was produced, the Investigating Officer was not examined, and the disclosure statement forming the basis of the recovery was therefore not duly established under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Although PW-5 supported the recovery, PW-2 and PW-3, the independent recovery witnesses, denied that the body or clothes had been recovered in their presence pursuant to the appellant’s pointing out.

The recovery of clothes, even if accepted, could not by itself complete the circumstantial chain.

The prosecution also failed to establish any independent motive against the appellant; the alleged motive was attributed principally to the acquitted co-accused.

Finally, the FIR, site plan, recovery documents and other investigation papers were proved through a police constable by secondary evidence, depriving the appellant of an effective opportunity to cross-examine their authors.

Taken cumulatively, the circumstances did not exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.

The conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case, subject to execution of a personal bond and two sureties under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., remaining in force for six months.