Much Reliance was placed by the prosecution regarding the recovery of dead
body at the instances of the accused which was alleged to be the recovery made
u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The evidence adduced in behalf of the prosecution
In the recovery memo,it had been alleged that the dead body of the deceased was
recovered by the police at the instances of the accused - Appellante and the
prosecution had examined Dy S.P who had proved the aforesaid recovery memo. The
evidence on record in this regard was contradictory.
Constable 320CP stated in the very beginning in his examination -in-Chief itself
on 10.9.1996 that he was informed at police station Kotwali Dehat ,Balrampur
that a boy had been murdered and his dead body had been thrown in cane field.
This was contradicted by C.O according to which he had arrested the Accused
appellant at about 1.30 PM and the cane field was about 1KM away from the place
where the accused appellant was apprehended and that the dead body was recovered
at about 2.30 -3.00 p.m .
The inquests memo however, showed that it was the informant who for the first
time gave the information at police station regarding recovery of dead body. The
circumstances as alleged by the prosecution regarding recovery of the dead body
at the instances the accused had not been mentioned in the inquests report
rather inquest report contradicted the prosecution case when it had been in the
inquest report that the dead body was seen by the informant herself for the
There was no evidence showing that the Accused was present near the place where
the dead body was found. In a case of loke nature where the case was based on
circumstantial evidence and where there was no evidence showing that the Accused
was present near the place where the dead body was found and the evidence of the
prosecution in this regard was contradictory, it had been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the alleged recovery of dead body u/s 27 of the Evidence Act
was not acceptable as per ruling.
So the court found that the case of the prosecution based on circumstantial
evidence was not believable and hence accused was acquitted of the charges
punishable u/s 302/201/ 364 IPC and u/ s 3(2)(5) /S.C/ S T Act