Recovery of Incriminating Articles Must Be Directly Linked to the Crime and Accused — Mere Possession or Police Narrative Is Not Enough: Supreme Court Acquits All Accused in Murder Case

“Statements Under Section 161 CrPC Are Not Substantive Evidence; Cannot Be Used When Witnesses Turn Hostile" — Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police, acquitting all accused in a gruesome 2011 murder case. The Court set aside the High Court’s conviction of six individuals under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, restoring the Trial Court's acquittal. It held that statements made under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be relied upon unless duly proved in trial, and that confessional recoveries under Section 27 must be directly linked to the accused and the crime.

The Court lamented the collapse of justice in a heinous case due to a compromised prosecution, but firmly reiterated that convictions must be based on legally admissible evidence, not on presumptions or police narratives.

The case stemmed from the brutal murder of Ramakrishna, an employee in an educational institution, on April 28, 2011, allegedly because he took sides in a property dispute between brothers A1 and PW4. According to the prosecution, A1, along with employees (A2 to A4), hired contract killers (A5 and A6) through an advocate (A7) to murder the deceased.

Ramakrishna was allegedly attacked in front of his minor son (PW8), who filed the first information statement. A long investigation followed, culminating in the trial of seven accused. The Trial Court acquitted all, citing that most of the 87 witnesses turned hostile, and the prosecution’s case collapsed. The High Court, however, reversed the acquittal, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Section 161 CrPC Statements Cannot Be Substituted for In-Court Testimony
"The High Court seriously erred in relying on the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161, as affirmed by the Investigating Officer, clearly in violation of Section 162 and the specific use to which Section 161 statements can be put."

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for relying on pre-trial police statements despite witnesses denying their contents in court. These statements, made under Section 161 CrPC, are not substantive evidence, and the Court reaffirmed that they can be used only for contradiction during cross-examination, as per Section 162.

The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh: “The statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation cannot be used for any purpose except for the purpose of contradicting a witness.”
It further referred to Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and emphasized that: “A statement under Section 161 CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence… the High Court committed a manifest error in relying upon wholly inadmissible evidence.”

Section 27 Evidence Act: Recovery Must Lead to Discovery and Be Connected to Crime
"The confession under Section 27, if speaking of the crime itself, that portion is not admissible since it would offend Sections 25 and 26."

The High Court had relied on recoveries of weapons and clothes with blood stains, based on confessions by A3. However, the Court observed that: “The recovery was made on a confession statement by A3 and not A5 or A6… There is no statement made by A3 regarding the handing over of the weapons & dress, by A5 & A6 to A3.”

Importantly, the Supreme Court found: “Nothing was done to verify whether MO12 – MO15 items of dress would fit A5 & A6… The mere recovery of dress under Section 27, that also through a confession statement of an alleged conspirator, does not implicate A5 or A6…”

Quoting Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, the Court emphasized that: “It is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced… the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this.”

It also reiterated from Navjot Sandhu: “Only so much of the information as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered can be proved, and nothing more.”

Confession of One Accused Cannot Be Used Against Co-Accused Under Section 30 Without Corroboration
“When even the recovery made based on a confession under Section 27, by itself cannot inculpate the person who made such a confession… there is no question of such a confession being made use of, to inculpate the other accused under Section 30.”

The Court firmly rejected the High Court’s approach of using A1’s confessions to implicate others. Referring to Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, the Court stated: “In dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person… it must begin with other evidence…”

The Collapse of the Prosecution and Hostility of Witnesses
"Prevaricating witnesses, turning hostile in Court and overzealous investigations, done in total ignorance of basic tenets of criminal law, often reduces prosecution to a mockery."

The Supreme Court observed with concern that 71 out of 87 witnesses, including family members and eyewitnesses, turned hostile, reducing the case to the testimony of police officers alone.

Even the deceased's wife (PW10) and brother (PW2) denied key allegations. Referring to the High Court's assumption that the wife’s hostility was due to influence from the accused, the Court remarked: “Which reasoning is presumptuous and fallacious.”

It cautioned: “Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the Investigating Officers which is founded only on Section 161 statements and voluntary statements of accused…”
“We can only accede to and share the consternation of the Division Bench of the High Court, which borders on desperation, due to the futility of the entire exercise… but that is no reason to convict accused somehow.”

The Supreme Court set aside the convictions, highlighting that: “Truth is always a chimera… The illusion surrounding it can only be removed by valid evidence led, either direct or indirect.”

With a heavy heart, the Court noted the failure of justice for the victim but reiterated that: “Moral conviction, total anathema to criminal jurisprudence, cannot be the basis for a legal conviction.”

Date of Decision: May 9, 2025