The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a criminal case does not automatically unravel merely because panch witnesses retract their earlier statements. If the recovery of incriminating material is otherwise established through reliable evidence, particularly the testimony of the investigating officer, the prosecution’s case can still stand.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale upheld a murder conviction recorded by courts in Madhya Pradesh, ruling that the recovery of evidence pursuant to disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act remained legally valid despite panch witnesses turning hostile during trial.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the recovery evidence had become unreliable once the independent witnesses to the seizure panchnama withdrew support. According to the Bench, judicial precedent has consistently held that hostility of panch witnesses is not, by itself, a reason to discard recovery evidence when it is otherwise proved through credible testimony.
The case stemmed from a gruesome murder in which the prosecution alleged that the accused, accompanied by others, entered the victims’ residence carrying country-made firearms, ammunition and guptis. Investigators claimed the victims were first administered Calmpose injections and were then fatally attacked with sharp-edged weapons.
During the investigation, authorities recovered blood-stained clothing, bedsheets and empty Calmpose vials from the crime scene. Medical evidence later revealed that the victims died from excessive bleeding caused by sharp-force injuries. Traces of the sedative were also detected in their bodies, lending support to the prosecution’s narrative.
After being convicted by the Sessions Court and subsequently failing before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The principal challenge focused on the recoveries allegedly made pursuant to his disclosure statements, with the defence insisting that the prosecution could not rely upon them once the panch witnesses had disowned the seizure proceedings.
The Supreme Court was unconvinced.
Writing the judgment, Justice Varale noted that courts have repeatedly accepted recovery evidence proved through investigating officers even when panch witnesses fail to support the prosecution. The Bench relied on earlier rulings, including Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat and Mallikarjun v. State of Karnataka, both of which recognised that hostility of panch witnesses does not automatically invalidate recoveries.
The Court observed that recovery evidence remains admissible and dependable if its authenticity is established through other trustworthy material on record. Since the investigating officer’s testimony sufficiently proved the recoveries in the present case, there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge and affirmed the conviction.
