LexRAJA KHAN versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 461 : 2025 INSC 167 Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025) 07 February 2025 [Sanjay Karol and Manmohan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant-accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution relied on recovery of weapon of assault (stone, gandasa) and gold chains belonging to the deceased, on the basis of statement given by the appellant in custody – Conviction of the appellant u/ss.302 and 201, IPC, if justified: Held: No – The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence – Where the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but the one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must show that the act has been done by the accused within all human probability – In the present case, the testimonies of the panch witnesses raised serious doubts regarding the version of the prosecution w.r.t the alleged disclosure made by the appellant and the recoveries pursuant thereto – Courts below not justified in disregarding the glaring inconsistencies w.r.t the recoveries made by the police pursuant to the alleged disclosure made by the appellant – The manner of recovery and preparation of seizure memos also raised grave doubts about the version of disclosure and recovery put forth by the prosecution – Also, the testimony of PW-23 was not corroborated by the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3 & PW-5, thus there is doubt w.r.t to the ‘last seen’ circumstance too – Prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, beyond * Author 462 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports reasonable doubt – Appellant given benefit of doubt, conviction u/ss.302 and 201 set aside. [Paras 16, 22, 30-33] Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25-27 – s.27, an exception to ss.25 and 26: Held: ss.25 and 26 stipulate that confession made to a police officer is not admissible – However, s.27 is an exception to ss.25 and 26 and serves as a proviso to both these sections – s.27 lifts the ban, though partially, to the admissibility of confessions – The removal of the ban is not of such an extent so as to absolutely undo the object of s.26 – As such the statement whether confessional or not is allowed to be given in evidence but that portion only which distinctly relates to discovery of the fact is admissible – A discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the Appellant-accused as to its existence. [Paras 18, 19] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Ingredients – Discussed. [Para 20] Case Law Cited Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091 : (1952) 2 SCC 71); Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116; Delhi Administration v. Bal Krishan & Ors., (1972) 4 SCC 659; Udai Bhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 830 : AIR 1962 SC 1116; Bodhraj Alias Bodha & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [2002] Supp. 2 SCR 67 : (2002) 8 SCC 45; Varun Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan [2010] 13 SCR 296 : (2011) 12 SCC 545; Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan [2011] 9 SCR 101 : (2011) 11 SCC 724 – referred to. List of Acts Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Circumstantial evidence; Murder; Iron pipe; Battleaxe (Gandasa); Stone; Gold chains; Pond; Stone quarry; Recovery of weapon of assault; Alleged disclosure made by the appellant; Recoveries; [2025] 2 S.C.R. 463 Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh Discovery and seizure; Seizure and recovery memo; Benefit of Doubt; Doubts about the version of disclosure and recovery; Confession; Section 27 of Evidence Act, 1872; Chain of Circumstances; Not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Chain of Evidence; Last seen; Testimonies of the panch witnesses; Inconsistencies; TIP; Glaring inconsistencies. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 04.07.2023 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 855 of 2014 Appearances for Parties Ashutosh Dubey, Santosh Chauriha, Saubhagya Chauriha, Ms. Rajshri A. Dubey, Abhishek Chauhan, H.B. Dubey, Shohaib Alvi, Ms. Ruchika Sharma, Amit P Shahi, Amit Kumar, A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.