Supreme Court of India
Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 173
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5357 OF 2025
NEELU @ NILESH KOSHTI …. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …. RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1) This Appeal calls in question the impugned judgment dated
01.12.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.389/2016 passed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Indore, whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal
preferred by the appellant and upheld the judgment of the Additional
Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Electricity Act 03), wherein the appellant
was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and seven years of
rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under
Section 201 of the IPC along with default stipulations.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2) On 28.07.2009, Bhagwati Bai (P.W.4) lodged a missing report at
Signature Not Verified
Pardeshipura Police Station, Indore, stating that her daughter Archana @
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.02.20
16:55:17 IST
Pinki was missing from 25.07.2009. During the course of investigation, it
Reason:
came to light that the mobile phone of Archana @ Pinki was being used by a
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 1 of 18
person who allegedly had custody of her, and was seeking a ransom of Rs. 5
lakh from her husband Rajesh (P.W.12). The SIM card belonging to Archana
@ Pinki was actively used in her phone till 01.08.2009.
3) It was found that, there was another SIM card which was being used
in her phone, particularly belonging to one Shekhar Chouhan (P.W.6). Upon
further investigation, it was unearthed that, Shekhar Chouhan purchased
the mobile phone belonging to Archana @ Pinki from the appellant.
4) The prosecution alleges that, the appellant along with his friend Jai
hatched a conspiracy to grab money from Archana @ Pinki’s husband by
abducting her. Even though, her husband-Rajesh agreed to pay the ransom,
unfortunately, she was murdered and her body was stuffed in a sack, and
was thrown into a well.
5) The prosecution’s case further elicits that, on 10.08.2009 during the
investigation, Inspector S.M. Jaidi (P.W.23) recorded a memorandum
statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’), leading to the recovery of the body of the
deceased-Archana @ Pinki. After completion of the investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed and the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302/34
and 201 of the IPC against the appellant. The Trial Court after appreciating
the entire evidence convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections
302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant’s appeal challenging his conviction
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 2 of 18
was also futile, as the High Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court
and held as follows:
“20. Looking to the testimony of all these witnesses
coupled with the medical evidence and other piece of
circumstantial evidence available on record, we are of the
considered opinion that trial court did not commit any
error in holding that appellant has murdered the
deceased Pinki for non-fulfillment of his demand of
ransom by strangulating her and kept her body in an
empty sack and destroyed the evidence of murder by
throwing her dead body into the well.”
6) Hence, the appellant is before us, challenging the concurrent findings
of the High Court and the Trial Court.
SUBMISSIONS
7) At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that there
has been an inordinate delay in filing the missing report. The deceased was
allegedly missing from 25.07.2009, but the report was filed only on
28.07.2009, without assigning any reason for such delay. He further
contended, that though the husband of the deceased, alleged that he
received a ransom call for Rs.5 lakh, no evidence is placed to substantiate
the same.
8) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, even though,
the body of the deceased was recovered from the well in a decomposed
state, the prosecution did not indicate as to who identified the body of the
deceased.
9) Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the Investigation Officer
(P.W.23) had not obtained any call details of the deceased’s mobile phone
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 3 of 18
and in absence of such vital evidence, the Courts below ought not to have
relied on the prosecution’s theory.
10) Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent-State supports the
concurrent judgments of the High Court as well as the Trial Court. He
contended that the chain of circumstances in the present case is complete
and indicates that the appellant can be the only person who killed the
deceased.
11) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
material available on record.
ANALYSIS
12) In the present case, the deceased Archana @ Pinki went missing on
25.07.2009 and her dead body was recovered on 10.08.2009 from a well at
the disclosure of the appellant. The only pivotal question which falls for our
consideration is whether the Trial Court and the High Court have rightly
placed the culpability on the appellant and convicted him for the murder of
the deceased Archana @ Pinki.
13) The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, as
there is neither any eyewitness nor any judicially admissible confession. It is
a trite law that when the conviction is solely based on circumstantial
evidence, there should be no breakage in the chain of circumstances,
leading to the culpability of the accused, within all human probability. In
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra1, this Court
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 4 of 18
outlined five essential principles which must be satisfied before an accused
can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid decision is reproduced herein below:
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be
or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri)
p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a
court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may
be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
14) The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to prove the
culpability of the appellant:
A. The deceased went missing on 25.07.2009 and the missing report
lodged by the deceased’s mother (P.W.4) dated 28.07.2009 is
proved.
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 5 of 18
B. Rajesh (P.W.12), husband of the deceased, in his examination-in
chief proved that he received a call seeking ransom of Rs.5 lakh
from a person who had custody of his deceased wife. It was further
proved that the ransom call was made from none other than the
deceased’s mobile number. Rajesh has also proved the factum of
marriage between him and the deceased.
C. The mobile phone of the deceased was sold by the appellant to
Shekhar Chouhan (P.W.6), who further sold it to (his brother-in-
law-Krushna Sharma (P.W. 5) and both of these witnesses deposed
in favour of the prosecution.
D. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well by the
Police and Fire Brigade at the disclosure of the appellant.
E. The recovered body was identified by Dilip (P.W.2), brother-in-law
of the deceased and Abdul Wakil (P.W.9), as that of Archana @
Pinki.
F. The Scooty, on which the deceased was travelling, was recovered,
at the disclosure of the appellant. The owner of the parking lot
Rajendra Gupta (P.W.8) has proved the seizure of registers
containing entry of parking of Scooty of the deceased in the
parking lot from where it was recovered.
G. The Motive – the deceased and appellant, on the pretext of
abduction of the deceased, were trying to seek ransom of Rs. 5 lakh
from the husband of the deceased, and to avoid sharing the
proceeds of crime, the appellant killed the deceased.
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 6 of 18
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
15) Before adverting to the examination of chain of circumstances
connecting the appellant to the crime, it is pertinent to first examine the
medical evidence on record. Dr. N.M. Unda (P.W.20), who conducted the
post-mortem of the deceased, has opined the cause of death to be throttling
of neck by ligature. The post-mortem report reveals that the dead body was
brought in primary stage of rot and partial adipocere changes. Significantly,
the post-mortem examination revealed multiple telling features: rope marks
were present on the body indicating that the deceased had been tied up; a
handkerchief was found tied over her mouth; another handkerchief was tied
on her left arm covering an ante-mortem wound caused by a sharp-edged
object; and ligature marks were present on the left side of the neck towards
the front and back at the part of the ear, with a width of 0.3 cm and length
of about 4 cm. The body was clothed in jeans and a T-shirt. The post-
mortem examination noted that parts of the body where handkerchiefs were
tied and where clothing was worn were relatively more preserved. The
presence of ligature marks on the neck, coupled with the fracture of the
thyroid cartilage and ecchymosis at the ligature site, leaves no room for
doubt that the death was homicidal in nature. The marks of the sack and
rope on the body were post-mortem, while the injury on the left arm was
ante-mortem.
CIRCUMSTANCE A: MISSING REPORT
16) Let us now examine the circumstances leading to the appellant’s
culpability. The deceased went missing on 25.07.2009. Her mother
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 7 of 18
Bhagawati Bai (P.W.4) lodged a missing report on 28.07.2009 at
Pardeshipura Police Station, Indore, stating that her daughter had been
missing since 25.07.2009. The factum of missing report is proved through
the testimony of the Bhagawati Bai and Shaligram (P.W.16), the Head
Constable, who deposed that, Bhagawati Bai came to the Police Station on
28.07.2009 and lodged a missing person report of her daughter, which was
written by him in Missing Person Register No.55/2009. At this juncture, the
learned counsel for the appellant contended that there has been an
inordinate delay of three days in lodging the missing report. We however,
find no merit in this contention. A delay in lodging a missing report, by
itself, does not vitiate the prosecution’s case. When a family member goes
missing, the family naturally hopes for the person’s return and often
conduct their own search before approaching the Police. The delay of three
days in the present case, is neither excessive nor unusual in such
circumstances.
CIRCUMSTANCE B: RANSOM CALLS
17) Rajesh (P.W.12), the husband of the deceased, in his examination-in-
chief deposed that after his wife Archana @ Pinki went missing, he received
phone calls seeking ransom of Rs. 5 lakh from a person who claimed to have
custody of the deceased. Significantly, these ransom calls were made from
the deceased’s own mobile number. Rajesh (P.W.12) also proved the factum
of his marriage with the deceased, thereby establishing his status as the
husband and the person to whom the ransom demand was directed. Both,
the High Court and the Trial Court, have relied upon the testimony of
Rajesh (P.W.12) to establish that ransom calls were made from the
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 8 of 18
deceased’s mobile phone. The Trial Court, while examining this
circumstance, has placed reliance on the statements of Rajesh Kumar Singh
(P.W.21), who was posted as DGM Legal at Idea Cellular Ltd. and the
Investigating Officer (P.W.23). The relevant paragraphs of the Trial Court’s
judgment read thus :
“23. Witness S.M. Jaidi the then SHO PS PW 23 also
stated that during the course of investigation, he received
call details from date 20.7.09 to 3.8.09 of mobile No.
9977907439 from Airtel company, supporting which
witness Rajesh Kumar Singh PW 21 stated that Idea
Cellular Ltd company Indore he was posted on l.12.2011
on the post of DGM Legal. Udaiveer was posted on the
post of Singh Senior Executive Nodal, whose handwriting
and signature, since worked with him is well acquainted.
Call details of mobile no.9977907439 dated 20.7.09 to
8.8.09 with covering letter Ex.P/24 were forwarded to
C.S.P. Pardeshipura which Ex.P/25 in 10 pages. These
call details were taken out from the computer in our
office which was allotted to Udaiveersingh and hence
name of Udaiveersingh is referred beneath the call
details. Calls received on the said number and calls made
by this mobile number from date 20.7.09 to 8.8.09, call
details are present in which time and duration of call is
referred, In Ex.P/25 “A” party calling party (who is
calling) and “B” receiving party (who has received the call)
is referred. In Ex.P/25 details of that handset in which
used sim details have been submitted, its I.M.E.I. No. is
354827023161750. Call details of that sim by their
company no. of which is 9977907439. On date 20.7.09
at 11.21.42 o clock on 9977907439, incoming call was
received from 9225805293 and for 38.54 second talk
took place. In the same way on 21.7.09 at 12.00.55 am
on on 9977907439, incoming call was received from
9225805293 and for 38.42 second talk took place, Call
details Ex.P/25 is of mobile No.9977907439 and
regarding calls received on it on which from different
mobiles and on this mobile calls, information is present,
in which following number of mobile 9890815777,
9225615777 and 9225805293 is also there.”Thus, the above evidence establishes that after the deceased went missing,
her mobile phone was in possession of somebody, who was using the same
for making ransom calls to the deceased’s husband.
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 9 of 18
CIRCUMSTANCE C: THE SALE OF THE DECEASED’S PHONE
18) During the investigation, the Police traced the deceased’s mobile
phone back to one Krushna Sharma (P.W.5), who stated that the said mobile
phone was sold to him by his brother-in-law Shekhar Chouhan (P.W.6) in
the month of August 2009 for a consideration of Rs.2500/-. It further
elicited that Shekhar Chouhan (P.W.6) purchased the said mobile phone
from the appellant for a consideration of Rs.2500/- in the month August
2009, and after purchasing it, he sold it to his brother-in-law, Krushna
Sharma (P.W.5). Both the testimonies of these witnesses have been
consistent. Ergo, it is the appellant who sold the mobile phone belonging to
the deceased to Shekhar Chouhan (P.W.6) and the same has been seized by
the Police and both the witnesses have identified the said mobile phone .
The question which arises now is as to how the appellant came in
possession of the deceased’s mobile phone, that too, at a time when the
deceased was missing. This circumstance warrants for an adverse inference
against the appellant. Although mere possession of the articles of deceased
does not prove that the appellant has committed the offence, but the said
circumstance of possession of the mobile phone has to be read in
conjunction with the other circumstances to conclude the appellant’s
culpability.
CIRCUMSTANCE D: RECOVERY OF DEAD BODY AT THE INSTANCE OF
THE APPELLANT
19) The appellant was arrested on 10.08.2009, and on the same date, the
Investigation Officer (P.W.23) recorded the appellant’s memorandum
statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to the discovery of
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 10 of 18
the dead body of deceased Archana @ Pinki from the well, near Tasaali
Dhaba, near the Indore bypass Road, Indore. The Police along with Fire
Brigade recovered the body from the well.
20) It is trite that Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act stipulate that
confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible. However, Section 27 is
an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and serves as a proviso to both these
sections. Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
“27. How much of information received from accused may
be proved.— Provided that, when any fact is deposed to
as discovered inconsequence 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 confession or not, as relates distinctly to
the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”The scope and ambit of Section 27 have been examined by this Court in
21) Elucidating on what constitutes “discovery of fact” under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act, this Court in Udai Bhan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh3
observed as follows :
“11. Thus it appears that Section 27 does not nullify the
ban imposed by Section 26 in regard to confessions made
by persons in police custody but because there is the
added guarantee of truthfulness from the fact discovered
the statement whether confessional or not is allowed to
be given in evidence but only that portion which
distinctly relates to the discovery of the fact. A
discovery of a fact includes the object found, the
place from which it is produced and the knowledge of
the accused as to its existence. ….”(Emphasis supplied)
22) The aforesaid legal position was comprehensively reiterated and elaborated
upon by this Court in Bodhraj Alias Bodha and Others vs. State of Jammu and
2 (1972) 4 SCC 659
3 1962 SCC OnLine SC 229Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 11 of 18
Kashmir4, wherein the question of whether evidence relating to recovery issufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was examined at length. This Court held
that for evidence under Section 27 to be admissible, the information must emanate
from an accused who is in police custody. The Court elucidated that the basic idea
embedded in Section 27 is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events –
when a fact is discovered on the strength of information obtained from a prisoner,
such discovery serves as a guarantee of the truthfulness of the information
supplied. The Court further observed that whether the information is confessional
or non-inculpatory in nature, if it results in the discovery of a fact, it becomes
reliable information. Significantly, it was held that the mere recovery of an object
does not constitute the discovery of fact envisaged in the section. Relying on the
Privy Council’s decision in Pulukuri Kottayya and Others vs. King Emperor5,
the Court held that the “fact discovered” embraces not merely the object recovered,
but the place from which the object was produced and the knowledge of the
accused as to its existence, and that the information given must relate distinctly to
that effect.
23) When the present case is examined in the light of the aforesaid
principles, it is evident that the recovery of the dead body satisfies all the
essential requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Pursuant to the
memorandum statement recorded, while the appellant was in Police
custody, the dead body of Archana @ Pinki was discovered from a well near
Tasaali Dhaba, Indore Bypass Road. The body was found stuffed in a sack,
as deposed by the panch witnesses who were present at the time of recovery.
The recovery panchnama establishes that the recovery was made at the
precise location disclosed by the appellant. As laid down in Udai Bhan
4 (2002) 8 SCC 45
5 AIR 1947 PC 67: 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 12 of 18
(supra), the discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from
which it is produced, and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.
In the present case, the information given by the appellant while in Police
custody distinctly relates to the fact discovered, namely, recovery of the dead
body of the deceased concealed in a sack and thrown in a specific well. This
constitutes a “distinct fact” as contemplated under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, as the recovery of the body from that precise location could
only have been made on the basis of information furnished by someone who
had personal knowledge of its disposal. The recovery embodies the “doctrine
of confirmation by subsequent events” as explained in Bodhraj (supra)—the
actual discovery of the body from the exact location disclosed by the
appellant is a guarantee that the information supplied by him is true. The
fact discovered embraces the place from where the object was recovered (the
well near Tasaali Dhaba) and the knowledge of the appellant as to its
existence at that location. This information is not within public domain or
capable of discovery through routine investigation. These circumstances
constitute a formidable link in the chain pointing towards the culpability of
the appellant.
CIRCUMSTANCE E: THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEAD BODY
24) At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the prosecution has failed to establish proper identification of the deceased
and that no DNA test was conducted to confirm the identity of the deceased.
However, we find this contention to be devoid of any merit. The post-mortem
report reveals that albeit the body of the deceased was in the state of partial
decomposition, certain parts remained relatively preserved due to the
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 13 of 18
binding of the ropes and the tying of handkerchiefs, which slowed the
process of decay. Significantly, the body was clothed in Jeans and a T-shirt,
and a handkerchief was tied over the mouth — these articles of clothing
further protected the underlying body parts from advanced decomposition.
25) The post-mortem examination clearly establishes that the body had
not deteriorated to a state where identification would be impossible. Dilip
(P.W.2), the brother-in-law of the deceased, was present as a panch witness
during the recovery of the body and he positively identified it as that of his
elder sister-in-law Archana @ Pinki based on the clothing worn. He signed
the panchayatnama prepared at the time of recovery. This identification is
further corroborated by Abdul Wakil (P.W.9), who was also a panch witness
present during the recovery and was the deceased’s regular auto rickshaw
driver. Abdul Wakil categorically deposed that though the body was in a
decomposed state, the face of Pinki was recognizable. The convergence of the
testimony of Dilip (P.W.2), who had close familial ties with the deceased, and
Abdul Wakil (P.W.9), who was her neighbour, establishes beyond reasonable
doubt that the body recovered was indeed that of Archana @ Pinki. The
absence of DNA testing does not vitiate the identification when credible and
consistent testimonies of witnesses who knew the deceased personally are
available on record. It is pertinent to note that the rate of decomposition of
body will change drastically in different environments. A beneficial reference
in this regard can be made to A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 14 of 18
Toxicology by Jaising P. Modi (26th Edition), wherein it was observed
thus while dealing with the concept of putrefaction of the body:
“Putrefaction or Decomposition and Autolysis.—
Putrefaction is a certain sign of death. It is a slow
process and consists of softening and liquefaction
brought about by the digestive action of enzymes,
released after death from tissue cells….As a result of
their action, the dead body invariably putrefies, unless
special means are taken to prevent their access or the
tissues are rendered unfit for their use. The skeletal
remains and the teeth resist putrefaction the most.”(Emphasis supplied)
More particularly, when dealing with the concept of putrefaction of body in
water, it was observed thus:
“Putrefaction in water:—The rate of putrefaction of a
body in water is more reliable than that of a body
exposed to air. The reason behind this is that the
temperature of the water is more uniform, and the body
is protected from air, as long as it remains submerged in
water. Ordinarily, a body takes twice as much time in
water as in air to undergo the same degree of
putrefaction. Putrefaction is retarded, when a body is
lying in deep water and is well protected by clothing,
while it is hastened in a body lying in water contaminated
with sewage. Putrefaction is accelerated, when the body
is removed from water, as the tissues have imbibed much
fluid. In such a body, decomposition is so rapid that the
changes occurring in twenty-four hours exposure to the
air will be more marked than those ordinarily resulting
from a fortnight’s further submersion. Casper’s dictum
is useful for a rough assessment of the rate of
putrefaction. It is eight times slower under soil and
two times slower under water compared to the body
in air (1:2:8).”
(Emphasis supplied)It is thus clear that the putrefaction of the body in water is slower, especially
when it is protected by clothing. In the case at hand, Abdul Wakil (P.W.9)
specifically stated that though the body smelt rotten, the face of the
deceased was still recognizable. Hence, the statement of Abdul Wakil (P.W.9)
finds scientific corroboration from the above.
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 15 of 18
CIRCUMSTANCE F: RECOVERY OF THE SCOOTY AT THE INSTANCE OF
THE APPELLANT
26) The Scooty on which the deceased was traveling when she went
missing was recovered at the disclosure of the appellant. The appellant in
his memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act led the
Police to a parking stand at Railway Station, Small Line, Indore, where the
Scooty had been parked since 25.07.2009. Rajendra Gupta (P.W.8), the
owner of the parking stand, deposed that on 25.07.2009 at about 5:00 PM
in the evening, Scooty was parked at his stand by a boy who deposited Rs.
30/- as parking charges. The entry of the said Scooty was made in the
parking register on 25.07.2009 and remained parked there till 10.08.2009.
Rajendra Gupta (P.W.8) proved the seizure of both, the parking registers
(Article A and Article B) containing the entries of the deceased’s Scooty, and
the seizure memo prepared when the Scooty was seized from the parking
stand. The recovery of the Scooty at the appellant’s disclosure, like the
recovery of the dead body, establishes his exclusive knowledge about the
whereabouts of the deceased’s belongings after she went missing. This
circumstance further strengthens the chain linking the appellant to the
crime.
CIRCUMSTANCE G: MOTIVE
27) The prosecution’s case, as accepted by both, the Trial Court and the
High Court, is that the appellant along with his associate Jai hatched a
conspiracy to extort money from the deceased’s husband Rajesh by
abducting her and demanding a ransom of Rs. 5 lakh. The High Court in its
judgment observed that the appellant murdered the deceased for non-
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 16 of 18
fulfilment of his demand of ransom. The Trial Court found that greed arose
in the minds of the appellant and his associate to grab the money without
sharing it with Archana @ Pinki, leading them to plan her murder. However,
it is well settled that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive is
not an absolute necessity when the chain of circumstances is otherwise
complete and points conclusively to the guilt of the accused. This Court in,
Mulakh Raj and Others vs. Satish Kumar and Others6, observed as
thus:
“17.…. Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences
motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in
the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock.
People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover
the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence. The
failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of
motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts
are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved.
Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the
link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused
with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case.
….”(Emphasis supplied)
28) In the present case, while the motive of financial gain through
extortion strengthens the prosecution’s case, the conviction does not rest
solely on motive but on the complete chain of circumstances established
through credible evidence.
CONCLUSION
29) Having meticulously examined each circumstance individually and
collectively, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established a complete
and unbroken chain of circumstances that points irresistibly to the guilt of
the appellant. The circumstances proved on record satisfy all the five
essential principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). The
6 (1992) 3 SCC 43 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 482 : 1992 SCC OnLine SC 378 at page 53
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 17 of 18
deceased went missing on 25.07.2009; ransom calls were made from her
mobile phone demanding Rs. 5 lakh; the appellant came into possession of
the deceased’s mobile phone and sold it; the dead body was recovered from
a well at the specific disclosure of the appellant under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act; the body was identified as that of the deceased; the deceased’s
Scooty was recovered at the appellant’s disclosure; and the medical evidence
established that the death was homicidal in nature. These circumstances,
when viewed cumulatively, form a complete chain. No other reasonable
conclusion is possible except for the inference that the appellant committed
the murder of Archana @ Pinki. The Trial Court and the High Court have
rightly appreciated the evidence placed on record by the prosecution and
have correctly determined the culpability of the appellant for the murder of
the deceased. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the concurrent
findings of both the Courts below.
30) Accordingly, the present Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed. However, taking note of the fact that the appellant has
undergone more than 15 years of imprisonment, he is granted liberty to
apply for remission, and the State shall consider the case of the appellant
for remission in accordance with the applicable policy.
………………………………………..J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
.……………………………………….J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 20, 2026.
Criminal Appeal No.5357 OF 2025 Page 18 of 18
