Section 27 discovery of remains completes the chain of circumstantial evidence sustaining a murder conviction.

The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, Santoshi, and their minor daughter, Paridhi.

The prosecution alleged that on 03.04.2017, the victims went missing from village Shobha

On 16.12.2017, during the investigation, the appellant made a memorandum statement leading to the exhumation of two human skeletons from a pit on a riverbank

A shovel (weapon of offence) was subsequently recovered based on a second memorandum statement

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 (two counts) and 201 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and lacked eyewitnesses

1. Whether the deaths of Santoshi and Paridhi were homicidal in nature

2. Whether the discovery of skeletal remains and the weapon of offence pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statements is sufficient to establish guilt in a case of circumstantial evidence

3. Whether the appellant’s conduct and failure to provide an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act complete the chain of circumstances

The court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code

It relied on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proof on a person regarding facts especially within their knowledge

The court also followed the established legal principle that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused

The court found that the discovery of two skeletons in a concealed pit on a riverbank, identified by family members through clothes and ornaments, conclusively established the deaths as homicidal

The court emphasized that the "crucial link" was the appellant’s disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the location of the burial was exclusively within his knowledge

Medical evidence showing ante-mortem fractures on the skull and spine of the deceased woman corroborated the use of a hard and blunt object like the recovered shovel

the court noted the appellant's incriminating conduct: he misled the victims' family by claiming they were alive in another state and failed to offer any explanation for their disappearance or the discovery of their remains in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement

The court determined these factors formed an unbroken chain of evidence pointing solely to the appellant's guilt

The court affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court, upholding the conviction and life sentence under Section 302 and the three-year sentence under Section 201 of the IPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence