Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved On - 11.11.2025
Delivered On - 24.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2021
Chatrpal @ Ravi @ Lambu
........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Rajkumar Singh, Advocates for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 2021
Bijendra @ Beeru @ Thakur
........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Rajkumar Singh, Advocates for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2021
Indrapal @ Guddu @ Tau
........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Rajkumar Singh, Advocates for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2021
Harish Kumar @ Sunny
........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rajkumar Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate (through video conferencing) for the
appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
2
Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 2021
Bhola @ Bhupendra
........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Rajkumar Singh, Advocates for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2022
Satish @ Anil
........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Rajkumar Singh, Advocates for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since all these criminal appeals have their basis a common FIR, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows; On 11.01. 2010, at about 01:30 in the afternoon, the jeweller's shop in the name and style of 'Neelam Jewellers' owned by PW 1 Vinay Garg (who is the informant also) and PW 2 Aman Garg was stormed by some miscreants. At that time, PW 9 Chanchal and one Mr. Rajkumar were the employee in the shop and PW 7 Smt. Gagandeep Kaur was a customer. The miscreants, at gun point, robbed the shop. They took all the jewellery. In fact, they looted the jewellery from PW 7 Smt. Gagandeep Kaur also. When they ran away, PW 1 Vinay Garg, PW 2 3 Aman Garg and other employees of the shop raised an alarm. A report of the incident was lodged by PW 1 Vinay Garg, in which it was stated that the jewellery of about Rs. 55 lakhs worth were looted along with its vouchers, etc. Based on which, chik FIR, Ex. A-17 was lodged at 03:30 p.m. at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and a case was lodged. The chronology of events, thereafter, is as follows:-
(i) On 06.02.2010, PW 10 Harish Mehra got an information that the miscreants are again trying to commit some offence. They are in a car bearing registration No. DL 4 CC-6649 ("the car") and they are having illegal arms with them. PW 10 Harish Mehra along with other police personnel left the police station and at about 02:30 p.m. signalled the car to stop. But, instead of stopping the car, one of the occupants opened fire. Fortunately, PW 10 Harish Mehra and other police personnel were not hurt. They were asked to surrender. Three persons alighted from the car. One of them was appellant Bijendra, from whose possession a country-made pistol 315 Bore with two cartridges and some currency notes and one gold ring were recovered. The second occupant was appellant Chatrpal @ Ravi @ Lambu, who had opened fire and thrown the country-made pistol on the road. It was recovered along with some currency notes and a gold ring. The third occupant was the appellant Bhupendra @ Bhola, from whose possession a gold ring and some currency notes were recovered.
4According to the prosecution case, they confessed their guilt and stated that the appellant Indrapal @ Guddu @ Tau, appellant Satish @ Anil and one Bilota had committed the dacoity. They have kept some jewellery on the dashboard, which were recovered and a recovery memo Ex. A-8 was recorded at the spot.
(ii) The custody of the appellant Satish was also secured by the police and on 20.02.2010, at his instance, from the house of Suresh Pal Tomar in Aligarh, jewellery was recovered and a recovery memo, Ex. A-16, was recorded.
(iii) On 21.02.2010, at the instance of the appellant Indrapal, the police reached at a place and recovered one mobile phone, which was allegedly thrown by the appellant Indrapal after the incident, which was found by PW 3 Girish Chandra. A recovery memo, Ex. A-4, of it was recorded.
(iv) On 20.02.2010, at the instance of the appellant Indrapal, the police reached Village Mirpur, Police Station Pilkhua, District Aligarh and from a house recovered jewellery, which according to the appellant Indrapal were looted from the shop on 11.01.2010. A recovery memo, Ex. A-6, of it was recorded.
(v) On 30.05.2010, at the instance of the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny, from the house of his 5 maternal uncle Hariom in Bulandshahr, jewellery was also recovered and a recovery memo, Ex. A-15 was prepared.
3. PW 10 Harish Mehra conducted the investigation, prepared the site plan and submitted Charge Sheet No. 117 of 2010 dated 23.04.2010, against the appellants Bijendra, Bhupendra, Chatrapal, Satish and Indrapal, which was the basis of Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2011, which was committed to the court of Sessions for trial on 11.05.2011.
4. In Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2011, on 23.04.2013, charges under Sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC were framed against the appellant Bijendra, Bhupendra, Chatrapal, Satish and Indrapal.
5. PW 10 Harish Mehra submitted separated charge sheet i.e. Charge Sheet No. 117A of 2010 against the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny and one Kailash @ Bilota, which is the basis of Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2011, which was committed to the court of Sessions for trial on 11.05.2011. In this Sessions Trial, charges under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC were framed against the appellant Harish @ Sunny and one Kailash @ Bilota. Kailash @ Bilota died during trial, therefore, by order dated 10.06.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2011, the case was abated against Kailash @ Bilota.
6. Both the Sessions Trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2011 and 123 of 2011 proceeded separately. On 08.08.2013, an order was passed in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2011 for joint trial of Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2011 and Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2011. Accordingly, the trial proceeded.
6
7. On 13.02.2020, the trial of the appellant Satish @ Anil was separated, as he was absent. Based on which, separately, the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011 were instituted.
8. Until the trial of the appellant Satish @ Anil was separated, 10 witnesses had already been examined, namely, PW 1 Vinay Garg, PW 2 Aman Garg, PW 3 Girish Chandra, PW 4 Bhupendra Singh, PW 5 Dharmpal, PW 6 Ramchandra, PW 7 Smt. Gagandeep, PW 8 SI Chanchal Singh, PW 9 Chanchal and PW 10 Inspector Harish Mehra. Thereafter PW 11 Arvind Chaudhary was examined on 06.03.2020 in Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2011 and 123 of 2011.
9. In these Sessions Trials, the appellants Bijendra, Bhupendra, Chatrapal, Indrapal and Harish were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code") on 18.10.2020 and after hearing the parties, the judgment was pronounced on 13.10.2021, by which the appellants Bijendra, Bhupendra, Chatrapal, Indrapal and Harish have been convicted and sentenced as below:-
(i) Under Section 395/397 - Rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three years. (ii) Under Section 412 IPC - Rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in default of payment of 7 fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three years.
10. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 408 of 2021, 411 of 2021, 412 of 2021, 414 of 2021 and 415 of 2021, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 13.10.2021.
11. After separation of trial of the appellant Satish @ Anil on 08.08.2013, the appellant Satish @ Anil was produced before the court on 12.10.2021. Thereafter, on 25.10.2021, PW 11 Arvind Chaudhary was examined. On that date, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution that in the instant matter, test identification was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Bansidhar Tiwari, therefore, he may be permitted to be examined. It was objected to by the defence, but by order dated 25.10.2021, passed in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011, the court permitted for examination of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Thereafter, deposition of PW 12 Bansidhar Tiwari was recorded in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011.
12. The appellant Satish @ Anil was examined under Section 313 of the Code in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011 on 27.11.2011. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2021, the appellant Satish @ Anil has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
(i) Under Section 395/397 - Rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three years. 8 (ii) Under Section 412 IPC - Rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three years.
13. The conviction and sentence of the appellant Satish @ Anil is impugned in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2022.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. In all these appeals, 10 witnesses are common i.e. PW 1 to PW 10 till 08.08.2013 when the trial of the appellant Satish @ Anil was separated, which is the basis of Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011. Thereafter in Sessions Trial Nos. 122 of 2011 and 123 of 2011, as stated PW 11 Arvind Chaudhary was examined. This witness was again examined in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011 on 25.10.2021 and thereafter one more witness Bansidhar Tiwari was also examined as PW 12.
16. For the sake of convenience, the documents shall be referred from Sessions Trial Nos. 122 of 2011 and 123 of 2011. Wherever, reference shall be made to any other document pertaining to appellant Satish @ Anil, it shall be specifically referred from Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case; no 9 witness of recovery has supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the appellants have also raised the following points in their submission:-
(i) The appellants or the allegedly recovered articles were not identified by any witness.
(ii) In all the criminal appeals, except Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 2022, filed by the appellant Satish @ Anil, the Magistrate, who allegedly conducted the test identification has not been examined.
18. Learned counsel for the State submits that certain looted articles were recovered at the instance of the appellant Satish @ Anil on 20.02.2020, which has been proved by PW 6 Ramchandra, PW 8 SI Chanchal Singh and PW 10 Inspector Harish Mehra, and in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011, PW 11 Arvind Chaudhary has also proved it; the articles were identified in the presence of PW 12 Bansidhar Tiwari, who has been examined in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011. Therefore, it is argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant Satish @ Anil. Learned State Counsel also submits that the recovery was also made from the appellant Indrapal and from the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny.
19. Before the arguments are appreciated, it would be apt to examine as to what the witnesses have stated?
20. PW 1 Vinay Garg is the informant. He has proved the FIR lodged by him on 11.01.2010. According to him, on 11.01.2010 at about 01:30 in the afternoon, their jewellery shop in the name and 10 style of 'Neelam Jewellers' was robbed by the armed miscreants; they took the gold jewellery worth about Rs. 55 lakhs and all the documents and other articles. He has proved the FIR, Ex. A-1 and the list of the articles looted by the miscreants, Ex. A-2. According to him, he had gone for test identification in Sub-Jail, Haldwani and signed the documents, which is Ex. A-3.
21. PW 2 Aman Garg has corroborated the statement of PW 1 Vinay Garg.
22. PW 7 Smt. Gagandeep Kaur was also present in the shop, when the dacoity was committed. She has also stated about the incident. According to her, the miscreants had also snatched her chain, purse and some money as well.
23. PW 9 Chanchal is the worker in the shop, who was also in the shop, when the dacoity was committed. He has stated about it.
24. PW 3 Girish Chandra has stated that once he was cleaning a drainage in front of his house, he found a mobile phone, which he gave to the police officer, of which a recovery memo, Ex. A-4, was prepared. In fact, Ex. A-4, according to the prosecution, is recovery of a mobile phone at the instance of the appellant Indrapal.
25. PW 4 Bhupendra Singh has also signed the recovery memo, Ex. A-4, which, according to him, is with regard to a mobile phone, which was found by PW 3 Girish Chandra and which he gave to the police officer.
26. PW 5 Dharmpal has not supported the prosecution case. Though, he has proved his signature on the recovery memo, Ex. A-6. 11 According to him, nothing was recovered from the appellant Indrapal in his presence, though he has stated that articles, which, according to the police, were allegedly recovered from Indrapal are Ex. 1 to 16.
27. PW 6 Ramchandra has also not supported the prosecution case. He is a witness of Ex. A-10, which is recovery allegedly made at the instance of the appellant Satish @ Anil. He has also been declared hostile.
28. PW 8 SI Chanchal Singh has stated that on 20.02.2010, at the instance of the appellant Satish @ Anil, recovery was made from the house of Suresh Pal Tomar. He has identified his signature on Ex. A-10 and proved those recovered jewellery, etc. Ex. 17 to 44.
29. PW 10 Harish Mehra is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has proved the site plan. According to him, on 06.02.2010, upon an information having been received, when the car was intercepted, the appellants Bijendra, Chatrapal and Bhupendra were apprehended and from the possession of the appellant Bijendra, a country-made pistol of 315 Bore and some jewellery was recovered. From the possession of the appellant Chatrapal, a country-made pistol of 315 Bore and 2 cartridges and one cartridge case and a ring were recovered. From the possession of the appellant Bhupendra, a ring was recovered. This witness has proved the recovery memo, Ex. A-8. PW 10 Harish Mehra is also the witness of recovery made at the instance of Satish @ Anil on 20.02.2010. He has also stated about it. This witness has proved the site plan. According to him, after investigation, he has submitted charge sheet against the appellants Bijendra, Bhupendra, Chatrapal, Indrapal and Satish @ Anil. He has proved it as Ex. 13. He has also proved the charge sheet submitted by 12 him against the appellants Harish Kumar @ Sunny and one Kailash @ Bilota, against whom the case has already been abated.
30. PW 11 Arvind Chaudhary has proved the recovery memo, Ex. A-15. According to him, on 30.05.2020, at the instance of the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny, from a house in Bulandshahr the jewellery was recovered, of which recovery memo Ex. A-15 was prepared. He has also proved the site plan and other police documents.
31. In Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011, PW 11 Arvind Chaudhary has further been examined. He has also stated about the recovery that has been made at the instance of the appellant Satish @ Anil, about which it was already stated by PW 8 SI Chanchal and PW 10 Harish Mehra in Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2011 and 123 of 2011.
32. PW 2 Bansidhar Tiwari has been examined in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011. According to him, on 22.02.2010, he conducted the test identification and prepared its report, which is Ex. A-13 regarding the appellant Satish @ Anil. He has proved the test identification report of the articles recovered, which is Ex. A-14. He has also proved other documents.
33. First and foremost, it has to be seen as to whether the appellants have committed the dacoity or not?
34. There are four witnesses, who were present at the spot. They are PW 1 Vinay Garg, PW 2 Aman Garg, PW 7 Smt. Gagandeep Kaur and PW 9 Chanchal. All of them have stated that the dacoity was committed on the shop on 11.01.2010. But, none of them have 13 identified any of the appellants. PW 1 Vinay Garg is though the author of the FIR, Ex. A-1, in which it is stated that on the date of incident, he was also present in the shop, but in his examination, he states that he was not in the shop; but when dacoity was committed, he was informed about it and he immediately reached at the shop. This witness has proved the signature on the identification memo, but the prosecution has declared him hostile. In his cross-examination, he tells that he has lodged the report on the basis of the information, which he received; he did not identify the appellants. In fact, he did not identify any of the appellants in the court and it is only thereafter that he was declared hostile. With regard to the test identification, he states that he had not identified the appellants or any of the articles, but he was told to do so by the police.
35. PW 2 Aman Garg has also not supported the prosecution case. He had not identified any of the appellants in the court. He was also declared hostile.
36. PW 7 Smt. Gagandeep Kaur has also not identified any of the appellants. According to her, she did not go to Jail to the jail to identify any of the appellants and nothing was recovered in her presence.
37. PW 9 Chanchal has also not identified any of the appellants.
38. The appellants or any of them have not been identified by these witnesses. They have denied the authenticity and credibility of the test identification. In Sessions Trial Nos. 122 of 2011 and 123 of 2011, the Magistrate, who conducted the test identification, has not 14 been examined. Therefore, the evidence of PW 12 Bansidhar Tiwari that was recorded in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2023 cannot be read against the appellants Bhupendra, Bijendra, Chatrapal, Indrapal and Harish Kumar. These appellants were neither identified by the eye- witnesses nor their test identification evidence is adduced.
39. In so far as the appellant Satish @ Anil is concerned, according to the PW 12 Bansidhar Tiwari, the appellant Satish @ Anil was identified and a memo of it, Ex. A-13 was prepared. In the impugned judgment recorded in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011, in para 96, the court has held that this Ex. A-13 does not reveal as to who identified the appellant Satish @ Anil. In such a situation, the identification of Satish @ Anil is also full of doubt. No reliance can be placed on the alleged test identification report of the appellant Satish @ Anil. Even otherwise, the appellant Satish @ Anil has not been identified in the court by any of the witnesses.
40. In view of it, this Court concludes that the appellants have not been identified by any of the witnesses. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the appellants had committed the dacoity in the shop of PW 1 Vinay Garg and PW 2 Aman Garg on 10.01.2010.
41. The question of recovery gains importance.
42. First of all, according to the prosecution, the recovery was made on 06.02.2010 from the appellants Bijendra, Chatrapal and Bhupendra. Recovery memo, Ex. A-8 has been proved by PW 10 Harish Mehra. No other witness of this Ex.A-8 has been examined by the prosecution. This is the sole witness of alleged recovery on 06.02.2010. The recovery memo, Ex. A-8 records that the jewellery and 15 arms were recovered from the appellants, but they were not produced in the court.
43. In view of it, the testimony of PW 10 Harish Mehra cannot be said to be fully reliable to establish that on 06.02.2010, from the possession of the appellants Bijendra, Chatrapal and Bhupendra any recovery was made.
44. In so far as the appellant Indrapal is concerned, two recoveries were allegedly made at his instance, which are a mobile phone and the jewellery. The recovery memo of mobile phone is Ex. A-
4. It has been proved by PW 3 Girish Chandra. According to Ex. A-4, the appellant Indrapal has stated that after the incident, he had thrown the mobile phone in the nali and when they reached in front of the house of PW 3 Girish Chandra, the appellant Indrapal indicated that he had thrown the mobile phone there only. At that time, according to the recovery memo, Ex. A-4, PW 3 Girish Chandra handed over a mobile phone to the police saying that while cleaning the drainage, he had found it. But, in his examination in the court, the PW 3 Girish Chandra has stated that he had found a mobile phone while cleaning the drainage in front of his house and he handed it over to the police in the police station. He has stated that when he gave the mobile phone to the police, the appellant Indrapal was not present there.
45. PW 4 Bhupendra Singh is also a witness of recovery of mobile phone at the instance of the appellant Indrapal. He has not supported the prosecution case in his cross-examination. According to him, he also does not know the appellant Indrapal; when PW 3 Girish Chandra handed over the mobile phone to the police, the appellant 16 Indrapal was not present. There are only two witnesses of this recovery, but both of them have, in fact, demolished the prosecution case. Therefore, the recovery of mobile phone at the instance of the appellant Indrapal has also not been established.
46. It is further the prosecution case that on 21.02.2010, at the instance of the appellant Indrapal, some jewellery was recovered from his house at Mirpur, Police Station Pilkhua, District Aligarh in the presence of PW 5 Dharmpal. The only witness of this recovery is PW 5 Dharmpal. He has denied the prosecution case. According to him, neither the appellant Indrapal was arrested in his presence nor any recovery of jewellery was made from the appellant Indrapal in his presence. In his examination-in-chief, PW 5 Dharmpal states that at the police station, police had shown the jewellery and he had signed on Ex. A-6. This witness has also not identified the appellant Indrapal.
47. There is no other witness of the alleged recovery of jewellery at the instance of the appellant Indrapal on 21.02.2010. The statement of PW 5 Dharmpal does not support this recovery. Therefore, this Court concludes that, in fact, the prosecution has not been able to prove that any recovery of jewellery was made on 21.02.2010 at the instance of the appellant Indrapal.
48. According to the prosecution, recovery of jewellery has also been made at the instance of the appellant Satish @ Anil on 20.02.2010, of which recovery memo is Ex. A-10. PW 6 Ramchandra, PW 8 SI Chanchal Singh and PW 10 Inspector Harish Mehra are the alleged witnesses of this recovery. In fact, in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011, constable Arvind Chaudhary has also stated about this recovery. 17
49. PW 8 SI Chanchal Singh has stated that the recovery was made at the instance of the appellant Satish @ Anil on 20.02.2010 from the house of Suresh Pal Tomar. He has proved the jewellery, Ex. 17 to Ex. 44. PW 10 Harish Mehra has also stated about it. In Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011, PW 11 constable Arvind Chaudhary has also stated about this recovery.
50. There is another recovery, which the prosecution has tried to establish with regard to recovery of articles on 30.05.2010 at the instance of the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny. PW 11 constable Arvind Chaudhary has stated about it. PW 11 constable Arvind Chaudhary is the sole witness of the alleged recovery at the instance of the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny, but those articles have not been proved as to where is that jewellery? There is no independent witness to the recovery allegedly made at the instance of the appellant Satish @ Anil and Harish Kumar @ Sunny.
51. According to the recovery memo, Ex. A-10, the recovery, which was allegedly made at the instance of the appellant Satish @ Anil, when the articles were recovered, they were sealed and a specimen seal was also taken. Similarly, according to Ex. A-15, the recovery memo of alleged recovery at the instance of the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny, after recovery these articles were sealed and a specimen seal was prepared.
52. With regard to the identification of articles allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny, no test identification memo has been proved. No witness has been examined by the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2011 and 123 of 2011 to prove that, in fact, the articles, which were recovered at 18 the instance of the appellant Harish Kumar @ Sunny were identified by any of the witnesses.
53. In so far as the recovery of articles from Satish @ Anil is concerned, as stated, in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011, PW 12 Bansidhar Tiwari has stated that he had got the articles identified. But, in his cross-examination, he tells that a contractor Dharmendra Kumar had brought similarly looking articles for identification. The question is that, if the articles recovered at the instance of Satish @ Anil were sealed and specimen seal was prepared, as recorded in Ex. A-10, how could the similarly looking articles were collected and placed for identification? If the articles were sealed, how could it was ascertained as to what was those articles looking like? It doubts the prosecution case.
54. Moreover, the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Evidence Act") is not a mere recovery. It is a recovery based on some statement given by the accused.
55. In the case of Bodhraj alias Bodha and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the law relating to recovery of articles at the instance of the accused. In para 18, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"18. Emphasis was laid as a circumstance on recovery of weapon of assault, on the basis of information given by the accused while in custody. The question is whether the evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered 19 is admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in Delhi Admn. v. Bal Krishan [(1972) 4 SCC 659 : AIR 1972 SC 3] and Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 828 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 199 : AIR 1976 SC 483] . The words "so much of such information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, are very important and the whole force of the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. The ban as imposed by the preceding sections was presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any other material fact, in consequence of the information thus received from him. This information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be 20 recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in the section. Decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 : 74 IA 65] is the most-quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered"
envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. (See State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde [(2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1088 : 2000 Cri LJ 2301] .) No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given."
56. In the case of Sanjay alias Kaka v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 3 SCC 190, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17 observed as follows:-
"17. Section 25 mandates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence. Similarly Section 26 provides that confession by the accused person while in custody of police cannot be proved against him. However, to the aforesaid rule of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, there is an exception carved out by Section 27 providing that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a 21 confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26. Such statements are generally termed as disclosure statements leading to the discovery of facts which are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the maker. Section 27 appears to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly it can be safely allowed to be given in evidence."
57. According to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a recovery may be proved, which is pursuant to some disclosure statement given by the accused. In the instant case, the prosecution has not proved any statement given to the police, which led to the recovery. Therefore, in absence of any disclosure statement also, the alleged recovery may not be read into evidence. It would become inadmissible.
58. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and the appellants ought to have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Learned court below has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the appellants. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
59. The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.10.2021 passed in Sessions Trial Nos. 123 of 2011, State v. Bijendra @ Beeru @ Thakur and Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2011, State v. Harish @ Sunny, and the judgment and order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 123A of 2011, State v. Satish @ Anil, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC, are set aside.
22
60. The appellants Chatrpal @ Ravi @ Lambu, Bijendra @ Beeru @ Thakur, Indrapal @ Guddu @ Tau, Harish Kumar @ Sunny, Bhola @ Bhupendra and Satish @ Anil are acquitted of the charges under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC.
61. The appellants Chatrpal @ Ravi @ Lambu, Bijendra @ Beeru @ Thakur and Bhola @ Bhupendra are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged of their liability. The appellants Chatrpal @ Ravi @ Lambu, Bijendra @ Beeru @ Thakur and Bhola @ Bhupendra shall furnish their personal bond and two sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned as per the provisions of Section 437A of the Code within a period of one month from today.
62. The appellants Indrapal @ Guddu @ Tau, Harish Kumar @ Sunny and Satish @ Anil are in jail. Let they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. They shall furnish personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned under Section 437A of the Code within a period of one month from today.
63. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be sent to the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J) 24.11.2025 24.11.2025 Avneet/