Supreme Court Quashes Murder Conviction Over Faulty Section 27 Evidence Recovery

The Supreme Court has set aside the murder conviction, after finding that the prosecution's recovery of evidence based on the accused's disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was riddled with inconsistencies, hostile witnesses, and a lack of forensic linkage. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that mere recovery of the evidence intrinsic to the commission of a crime based on the disclosure statements would not be sufficient for conviction, unless the recovery process is legally reliable, thereby meeting the standards required under Section 27. The case arose from the alleged murder, where the Trial Court had convicted the appellant, and his conviction was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no direct eyewitness to the crime. A crucial component of the case was the alleged recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27, i.e., a blood-stained axe and clothes recovered from the appellant's house pursuant to disclosure statements, and a driving licence allegedly recovered from the crime scene.Notably, a co-accused was acquitted by the Trial Court itself despite similar recovery evidence against him. Against the conviction, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies and hostile witness testimony. Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the prosecution failed to establish any credible link between the blood found on the axe and the deceased. The Court further noted that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the hair recovered from the axe belonged to the deceased. “…(i) the blood group of either the deceased or of the blood present on the weapons or clothes was not determined; (ii) though it was observed the hair present on the axes was similar in morphological and microscopical characteristics to the hair recovered from the spot, no conclusive opinion was given if it belonged to the deceased; and (iii) there was no definitive link made between the recovered axes and the deceased's injuries.”, the court observed. Further, the Court noted serious procedural lapses in the preparation of seizure memos, as the signatures of witnesses were not obtained at the place and time of recovery. Instead, they were taken later, even while the witness was travelling elsewhere. “It is evident that the witnesses have either turned hostile or not corroborated the case of prosecution on any material particulars in relation to the recoveries beyond just admitting their signatures. Given that both accused continuously remained in judicial custody throughout the trial, the said hostility and non-corroboration can also not be attributed to any influence or tampering on their part. The recovery circumstance, therefore, remains legally tenuous.”, the court observed. In light of the aforesaid, the Court found the conviction to be bad, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Cause Title: GAUTAM SATNAMI VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARHCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 345Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Ms. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv. Mr. Vishvanath Agarwal, Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Praneet Pranav, D.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR