Now we come to the recoveries made allegedly with the aid of the accused. The dead body was found in a field, an open space with free access to anybody. The stone and glass piece are said to have been recovered from the place of occurrence itself, albeit with the aid of the accused. We have serious doubts about the recoveries having the status of a recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but for the time being we would assume it to be so. A stone, weighing 1-1.5 kg and a glass piece were said to have been recovered, on the showing of the accused, specifically A1 and A2. The seizure list as seen from the records does not indicate the specific place from which it was recovered other than stating that it is ‘from the PO at the paddy land of Jogesh Roy’. The learned State Counsel would argue that though the paddy field had free access, it was thick with stalks and there could definitely be a concealment; the growth not borne out from the evidence. We do not for a moment doubt that there could be concealment even in a public place or in a field with thick vegetation, but there is no statement recorded from the accused as to such a concealment having been effected and then the police having been led to the location and the material object recovered from the place of concealment. Recital in the seizure list is only that ‘on being shown and certified by accused 1 and 2’. Concealment and its knowledge, revealed from the statement of the accused, is the crucial ingredient of Section 27 which can lead to that being used in a criminal trial, any other confession to a police officer being excluded as self-incriminating. {Para 12}
13. Further, the said recoveries are/ made on 02.11.2012 and
the same was witnessed by PW5, the Pradhan who had come to
the place of occurrence at the time of the recovery of body, on
31.10.2012 and at the time of recovery, on 02.11.2012. In fact, the
testimony of PW5 is that the signature on the inquest report and
the seizure report are his and it relates to one broken spectacles,
one stone, one gangee and four pairs of sandals and one single
sandal. It is not clear from the testimony of PW5 as to which were
seized by the police on 31.10.2012 and what was recovered on
02.11.2012. The recovery thus has no clarity and more
importantly the accused pointing out the concealed objects or
even their presence at the time was not deposed to by PW5.
14. The recovery on 02.11.2012, as evidenced from the seizure
report, was with respect to four items; the stone, a broken glass
and two spectacles, one of which was broken, not testified to by
PW5. The other objects were seized at the time of inquest from
the place of occurrence from where the body was recovered.
Yet again as we already observed there is no statement taken of
the accused of a concealment and the recoveries made do not
qualify to be one under Section 27. The stains on the stone found
at the place of occurrence and the serology report of it being
human blood, hence, is of no consequence.
15. We also have to observe that the seizure is said to have
been made in the presence of both the accused without
indicating as to who out of the two revealed the concealment. As
a matter of fact, PW16, the Investigating Officer, testifies that
both the accused A1 and A2 informed him that if they are taken to
the place of occurrence they would recover the stone and
broken glass with which the deceased was murdered and also
the motorcycle of Samir; the last of which we will deal with a little
later. Here we have to emphasize that PW5, the witness to the
recovery, categorically stated that neither the stone nor the glass
piece was produced in Court and hence not confronted to the
witness. More pertinently the alleged weapons of assault were
not shown to the Doctor to elicit his opinion as to whether the
said objects could have caused the injuries found on the dead
body. The recoveries are of no avail and do not form a clinching
incriminating circumstance against the accused.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 2507 of 2026
Papan Sarkar @ Pranab Vs State of West Bengal
Author: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 528
Dated: MAY 22, 2026.
Read full judgment here: Click here.
