Money and Murder Weapon Were Only Shown at Police Station, Not Recovered in Witnesses’ Presence: Jharkhand High Court Discards Entire Recovery Evidence

“Production of Articles in Police Station Without Proper Seizure in Presence of Independent Witnesses Cannot Be Treated as Recovery Under Law,” Holds Jharkhand High Court While Acquitting Accused in Murder Case

In a ruling that strongly reaffirms the evidentiary standards required for criminal convictions based on circumstantial evidence, the Jharkhand High Court set aside the conviction of Madhab Chandra Dey @ Madhu, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and robbery. The High Court, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, held that the entire recovery evidence in the case was vitiated due to the fundamental failure to establish that the recoveries were made in the presence of seizure witnesses as required under law.

At the heart of the prosecution’s case was the alleged recovery of a knife said to be used in the murder of the deceased, and Rs. 30,000/- allegedly recovered from the appellant’s backyard — all forming the supposed “circumstantial chain.” However, the High Court found that none of the seizure witnesses corroborated these alleged recoveries.

“Not Recovery, But Mere Display in Police Station”: Court Rejects Seizure as Legally Invalid

Referring to the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-7, the alleged seizure witnesses of the murder weapon (a spring knife), the Bench noted that they categorically denied witnessing any recovery from the site claimed by the police.

PW-6 Arun Chatterjee stated he was not present when the knife was allegedly recovered and denied any knowledge of its discovery from bushes behind the Chandrakant Market. Similarly, PW-7 Gour Datta admitted in court that he had signed the seizure list at the police station, and the knife had already been placed on the table by the time he arrived.

“This Court finds that from the depositions of PW-6 and PW-7, who are seizure list witnesses to the recovery of the knife, the alleged recovery is completely unproved and unreliable,” the Bench observed.

Rs. 30,000 Allegedly Recovered from Backyard Also Disbelieved – “Seizure Witnesses Saw Money in Police Station”

Turning to the alleged recovery of Rs. 30,000 from the appellant’s premises, the Court noted that PW-8 Duja Pad Dey and PW-10 Shaligram Dutta — both shown as seizure witnesses — did not support the prosecution story.

PW-8 stated during cross-examination that he saw the money for the first time at the police station and was told to sign papers. PW-10 similarly admitted that he signed on the seizure list in the police station and not at the scene of recovery.

The Court categorically held:

“From the depositions of PW-8 and PW-10, this Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove the recovery of Rs. 30,000 from the appellant Madhab Chandra Dey beyond reasonable doubt.”

A similar fate met the alleged recovery of Rs. 18,000 from co-accused Ludka Kandu, now deceased, as PW-11 and PW-12, the seizure witnesses for that recovery, were both declared hostile and discredited the prosecution’s claims.

“When All Seizure Witnesses Deny Presence at Site, Recovery Fails Legal Test”: Court Applies Standard from Apex Court Rulings

The Court applied well-established principles from Supreme Court precedents, including Attar Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 11 SCC 719, Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, reiterating that mere possession of an item shown by police at the station does not qualify as recovery in law unless properly seized in presence of credible, independent witnesses.

Quoting from the judgment, the High Court stated: “The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as same has not been supported by the prosecution witnesses on the point of alleged seizure of knife from the bushes and money from the appellant.”

The Court went on to hold that this failure to prove essential recoveries completely broke the chain of circumstantial evidence, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt under established criminal jurisprudence.

Conviction Set Aside, Accused Acquitted After 29 Years

Finding that the trial court had erred in relying on legally deficient recovery evidence and failed to apply the principles governing circumstantial cases, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The judgment of conviction dated 20.09.1997 and sentence dated 22.09.1997 was quashed.

The Court directed that the appellant be discharged from all criminal liability, his bail bonds be cancelled, and the trial court records be returned

Date of Decision: 21 January 2026