1 2026:CGHC:23985-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1326 of 2024 1 - Ajay Singh Kanwar S/o Pawar Singh Kanwar Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Budhanpur, Police Station - Nagarda, District Sakti (C.G.) 2 - Narayan Maitri S/o Late Pratap Singh Maitri Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Budhanpur, Police Station - Nagarda, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police of Police Station Nagarda, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.06.2026 1. Today, though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A. No. 02 of 2024, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, considering the fact that the appellants are ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 in jail since 28.04.2022 and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) read with Section 415 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District – Sakti (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.38/2022, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants in the following matter with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently :- CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 302/34 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 06 months U/s 201/34 of IPC RI for 05 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 02 months 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Upasram Kanwar, appeared at Police Station Nawdha on 20.04.2022 and reported that his daughter, Sahodra Kumari Kanwar, had gone missing. Consequently, Missing Person Report No. 06/2022 was registered. It was reported that she had been missing from her house since the night of 13.04.2022, between approximately 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM. During the search, the police interrogated Ajay Singh Kanwar, a resident of Budhanpur village, who was 3 suspected in the matter. During interrogation, he disclosed that he was in a love relationship with Sahodra Kumari Kanwar and that the two could not marry due to social reasons. He further stated that Sahodra Kumari Kanwar had become resentful after learning that his marriage had been arranged with another girl and had allegedly threatened to call the girl’s family and break the marriage proposal. Bearing such grudge, he allegedly planned to murder Sahodra Kumari Kanwar and on 13.04.2022 at about 8:00 PM, he called Sahodra Kumari Kanwar near the Budhanpur stream and, along with his associate Narayan Maitri, strangulated her to death. Thereafter, in order to conceal the evidence, they buried her body in a pit that had been dug in advance. His memorandum statement was recorded as Ex.P-16. Acting upon the information provided by him, the police proceeded to the forest area of Kalmibhantha Jamarwar and, in the presence of the Executive Magistrate, conducted exhumation proceedings. During the excavation, the body of a woman was recovered. At the spot, the deceased’s father identified the body as that of his daughter, Sahodra Kumari Kanwar, based on the clothes worn by her, a silver bracelet on her right wrist, and the tattooed letters “S A” on her left wrist. An identification memorandum (Ex.P-12) was prepared accordingly. Since the body was identified by her father as that of Sahodra Kumari Kanwar, the missing person was treated as having been recovered in a deceased condition. A recovery memorandum of the dead body (Ex.P-20) was prepared. 4 Based on the merg intimation (Ex.P-4), a numbered merg case No. 07/2022 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-35) was registered and taken up for inquiry. The exhumation proceedings were documented through memorandum Exs.P-17, P-18, and P-19. A spot inquest report (Ex.P-15) was also prepared. 4. After completion of the inquest proceedings, a memo (Ex.P-33) was issued for post-mortem examination of the body. The Medical Officer of the Community Health Centre, Jaijaipur, conducted the post-mortem and submitted the post-mortem report (Ex.P-31) and the short post-mortem report (EX.P-32). In the post-mortem report, the doctor opined that the deceased had died due to homicidal strangulation. Accordingly, offences under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the accused persons, and investigation was undertaken. During the investigation, it was revealed that on 13.04.2022, at about 8:00 PM, accused Ajay Singh Kanwar and his associate Narayan Maitri had murdered the deceased by strangulation near the Budhanpur stream and buried the body to conceal the evidence. Their memorandum statements were recorded as Exs.P-21 and P-22, and the articles allegedly used in the commission of the offence were seized vide seizure memos Exs.P-23 and P-24. A spot map (Ex.P-5) was prepared. The Station House Officer of Police Station Nawdha issued a memorandum through the Tehsildar, Sakti, seeking a revenue map of the place of occurrence, pursuant to which the Patwari 5 prepared the site map (Ex.P-7). The police also requested the Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Sakti, to examine the seized articles and submit a query report, which was received as EX.P-42. Constable Narendra Rathore (No. 772) produced sealed packets, which were seized vide Ex.P-40. Pursuant to a memorandum issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sakti (Ex.P-48), the seized articles were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, for chemical examination. The chemical examination reports were received as Exs.P-52 and P-53. 5. Statements of witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. The accused persons, Ajay Singh Kanwar and Narayan Maitri, were arrested vide arrest memos Exs. P-43 and P-44, respectively. Upon completion of the entire investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti. After committal to the Sessions Court, the case was ultimately transferred to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti for trial. 6. Based on the charge-sheet and accompanying documents, charges under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC were framed against the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to them, but they denied the allegations and claimed trial. In their statements, the accused pleaded innocence and asserted that they had been falsely implicated. No defence evidence was adduced on their behalf. 6 7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Santosh Kumar Kanwar (PW-1), Chandra Kumar Kanwar (PW-2), Girja Bai (PW-3), Shiv Prasad (PW-4), Upasram (PW-5), Leelabai (PW-6), Lachhiram (PW-7), Rakhi Lal Kanwar (PW-8), Dhaneshwar (PW-9), Mohar Lal (PW-10), Devnarayan Patel (PW-11), Puniram (PW-12), Aktiram (PW-13), Patwari Rahul Kumar (PW-14), Rakesh Kumar Densil (PW-15), Raina Jameel, Chief Executive Officer (PW-16), Manmohan Pratap Singh, Executive Magistrate (PW-17), Woman Head Constable Chandrakala Son (PW-18), Tehsildar Shiv Kumar Dansena (PW-19), Dr. Kiran Binjhwar (PW- 20), Sub-Inspector C.P. Kanwar (PW-21), and Head Constable Chhagan Sahu (PW-22). The prosecution and the accused exhibited various documentary pieces of evidence prepared and collected during the investigation, marked as Exs.P-1 to P-55C and Defence Exs. D-1 to D-3, respectively. 8. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 19.04.2024, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as aforementioned, hence, this appeal. 9. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are contrary to the evidence available on record and suffer from serious factual as well as legal infirmities. It is contended that the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence; however, the prosecution has failed to 7 establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of guilt of the appellants. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are either not proved at all or are highly doubtful and incapable of sustaining a conviction for a serious offence like murder. It is submitted that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated, and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. Insofar as appellant No.1 Ajay Singh Kanwar is concerned, Mr. Soni, learned counsel submits that the alleged motive projected by the prosecution is wholly unsubstantiated. According to the prosecution, the deceased and appellant No.1 were in a love relationship and the deceased informed another girl, with whom appellant No.1 was allegedly intending to marry, about such relationship, resulting in cancellation of the proposed marriage. It is argued that no call detail records, electronic evidence, or any independent material have been produced to establish that any such communication was ever made by the deceased. In absence of reliable evidence supporting the alleged motive, the same cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. It is further submitted that even assuming such motive existed, it was neither immediate nor proximate to the alleged occurrence and therefore cannot be considered a strong circumstance sufficient to sustain conviction. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 10 SCC 733, wherein the Supreme Court 8 held that motive alone cannot take the place of proof and must be established by cogent evidence. 11. Mr. Soni further submits that the prosecution has primarily relied upon the alleged recovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ex.P/16) allegedly made by appellant No.1 on 27.04.2022. However, the said circumstance is itself highly doubtful and legally inadmissible. It is argued that at the time when the alleged disclosure statement was recorded, appellant No.1 was neither formally shown as an accused nor was he in lawful police custody. Consequently, the requirements of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were not satisfied and the alleged disclosure statement cannot be treated as admissible evidence. At the highest, the conduct of the appellant may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, but such circumstance alone cannot constitute the basis for conviction in a murder case. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on Rajesh v. State of M.P., (2023) 15 SCC 521. 12. Mr. Soni also points out several circumstances creating serious doubt regarding the alleged recovery of the dead body. It is submitted that the evidence on record indicates that the place from where the dead body was exhumed was already known to the police prior to the alleged disclosure statement. The testimony of prosecution witnesses suggests that information regarding burial of the body at Kalami Bhatha had already reached the police before recording of Ex.P/16. It is further submitted that 9 material witnesses have not supported the prosecution version that the dead body was recovered strictly at the instance of appellant No.1. The Executive Magistrate, who supervised the exhumation proceedings, did not state that the appellant pointed out the place of burial. Likewise, another witness stated that the place for digging was indicated by the police officials themselves. Significantly, the contemporaneous documents prepared immediately after recovery do not record that the recovery was made at the instance of appellant No.1. These omissions strike at the root of the prosecution case and create a serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged disclosure and recovery proceedings. 13. It is further contended by Mr. Soni that there are material contradictions between the alleged disclosure statement and the scientific evidence. While the prosecution claims that appellant No.1 disclosed that the deceased had been strangulated, the forensic report reveals the presence of Aluminium Phosphide pesticide in the viscera of the deceased. Such inconsistency creates substantial doubt regarding the truthfulness and reliability of the alleged disclosure statement. Learned counsel also questions the conduct of the investigating agency, pointing out that despite the alleged recovery of the dead body at about 1:30 p.m. on 27.04.2022, the FIR came to be registered only at about 8:00 p.m. on the same day without any satisfactory explanation. According to learned counsel, these circumstances clearly 10 indicate that the disclosure statement was subsequently introduced to strengthen an otherwise weak prosecution case. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2186. 14. So far as the alleged recovery of the spade/sabbal at the instance of appellant No.1 is concerned, Mr. Soni learned counsel submits that the same is wholly inconsequential. No forensic evidence has been brought on record to establish that the recovered article was used in the commission of the offence. There is no report showing presence of blood, biological material, soil comparison, or any other scientific link connecting the recovered article with the crime. Consequently, such recovery cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against appellant No.1. 15. With regard to appellant No.2 Narayan Maitri, Mr. Soni learned counsel submits that the prosecution case is even weaker. The implication of appellant No.2 is primarily based upon the memorandum statement of co-accused appellant No.1, wherein his name has been disclosed as a co-participant. It is settled law that the disclosure statement of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused and cannot form the sole foundation for conviction. Reliance is placed upon Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam, (2004) 7 SCC 779. Apart from such disclosure, there is no direct evidence connecting appellant No.2 with the alleged crime. The only other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is recovery of a 11 sabbal pursuant to his disclosure statement. However, as in the case of appellant No.1, no scientific or forensic evidence has been adduced to establish any nexus between the recovered article and the commission of the offence. Thus, the alleged recovery is devoid of evidentiary value. Mr. Soni, therefore, submits that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even if taken collectively, they do not form a complete chain leading exclusively to the guilt of the appellants and are fully consistent with their innocence. The prosecution has failed to satisfy the well-settled principles governing conviction based on circumstantial evidence. In these circumstances, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and both the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. 16. Per contra, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has rightly recorded the finding of guilt against the appellants. It is contended that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a complete chain of incriminating circumstances which unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellants and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on 12 cogent evidence and do not warrant interference in appeal. Learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has been able to establish a strong motive against appellant No.1 Ajay Singh Kanwar. The evidence on record demonstrates that appellant No.1 was in a relationship with the deceased and was desirous of marrying another girl. The prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed that the proposed marriage of appellant No.1 was adversely affected on account of the disclosure made by the deceased regarding their relationship, thereby furnishing a motive for the commission of the offence. It is argued that though motive by itself may not be sufficient to sustain conviction, where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive assumes considerable significance and lends assurance to the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the most significant circumstance against appellant No.1 is the recovery of the dead body of the deceased pursuant to the information furnished by him. The evidence of the investigating officer and other prosecution witnesses clearly establishes that the appellant disclosed the place where the dead body had been buried and, acting upon such information, the police recovered the body from a concealed location. Such discovery of a fact, which was within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant, constitutes a highly incriminating circumstance. Merely because certain witnesses have not used identical expressions while narrating the recovery proceedings would not render the recovery doubtful. The trial 13 Court has rightly accepted the evidence relating to the disclosure statement and consequent recovery after a careful appreciation of the entire material on record. Learned State counsel further submits that the recovery of the spade/sabbal at the instance of the appellants constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance corroborating the prosecution case. It is argued that absence of a positive forensic report is not by itself fatal to the prosecution where there exists other reliable evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The recoveries made pursuant to the disclosure statements of the appellants are admissible to the extent permissible under law and provide valuable corroboration to the prosecution case. 17. With regard to appellant No.2 Narayan Maitri, learned State counsel submits that his involvement does not rest solely upon the memorandum statement of co-accused appellant No.1. The prosecution has established his complicity through the cumulative effect of the circumstances appearing on record, including the recovery effected at his instance and his role in the commission of the offence as revealed during investigation. The circumstances proved by the prosecution cannot be viewed in isolation and must be appreciated in their entirety. When considered cumulatively, they form a complete chain pointing towards the participation of appellant No.2 in the crime. It is further argued that minor discrepancies, omissions, or procedural irregularities highlighted by the appellants do not affect the core of the prosecution case. 14 The law is well settled that every inconsistency is not sufficient to discard otherwise reliable evidence. The trial Court has meticulously examined the evidence and has rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. No perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence has been demonstrated which would justify interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 18. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 19. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is trite law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be fully established; the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only towards the guilt of the accused while ruling out every hypothesis consistent with innocence. 20. The principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been succinctly laid down by the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be 15 complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 21. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 22. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence 16 relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 23. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 24. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- 17 “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (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.” 25. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular 18 hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 26. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles 19 have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 27. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in proving a complete chain of circumstances against appellant No.1 Ajay Singh Kanwar. The evidence on record establishes that appellant No.1 was admittedly acquainted with the deceased and was maintaining a relationship with her. The prosecution has also succeeded in establishing a motive for the crime, namely, the resentment allegedly harboured by appellant No.1 after the deceased disclosed their relationship to the family of the girl with whom his marriage was proposed. Though motive by itself cannot form the basis of conviction, it assumes significance when supported by other incriminating circumstances. In the present case, motive constitutes one of the links in the chain of circumstances. 28. The most significant circumstance against appellant No.1 is the discovery of the dead body pursuant to the information furnished by him. The evidence of PW-21 C.P. Kanwar, the Investigating Officer, coupled with the memorandum and recovery proceedings, establishes that appellant No.1 disclosed the place where the body of the deceased had been concealed. Acting upon such information, the police recovered the dead body from a pit in a forest area. The place of concealment was not an ordinary place accessible to public view but a location where the body had been buried beneath the earth. The discovery of such fact pursuant to 20 the information supplied by appellant No.1 is a highly incriminating circumstance. 29. The contention advanced on behalf of appellant No.1 that the disclosure statement is inadmissible because he was not formally shown as an accused at the time of recording of the memorandum does not impress this Court. The evidence on record clearly demonstrates that appellant No.1 was under interrogation in connection with the disappearance of the deceased and the information furnished by him led to the discovery of a material fact, namely, the place where the dead body was buried. The admissible portion of the statement leading to discovery is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The law is well settled that discovery of a concealed dead body at the instance of an accused constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance. 30. We are also unable to accept the submission that the place of burial was already known to the police. No convincing evidence has been brought on record to establish prior knowledge of the investigating agency regarding the exact location of concealment of the dead body. Minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses regarding the manner in which the place was identified do not affect the core prosecution case. It is well settled that normal discrepancies due to lapse of memory or variation in narration are not sufficient to reject otherwise reliable evidence. The evidence of the investigating officer and the 21 contemporaneous documents prepared during exhumation inspire confidence and establish the factum of recovery pursuant to the information furnished by appellant No.1. 31. The medical evidence lends complete assurance to the prosecution case. PW-20 Dr. Kiran Binjhwar conducted the post- mortem examination and categorically opined that the death was homicidal in nature caused by strangulation. Merely because Aluminium Phosphide was detected in the viscera does not dilute the categorical medical opinion regarding homicidal death by strangulation. No material has been brought on record by the defence to demonstrate that the cause of death was anything other than homicidal strangulation. The settled position of law is that where direct medical opinion clearly establishes the cause of death, ancillary forensic findings cannot be viewed in isolation so as to discredit the prosecution case. 32. The recovery of the spade/sabbal at the instance of appellant No.1 constitutes an additional corroborative circumstance. Though the absence of a conclusive forensic linkage may diminish the evidentiary weight of such recovery, it does not render the entire prosecution case doubtful when other circumstances stand firmly established. Circumstantial evidence is required to be evaluated cumulatively and not in isolation. 33. Considering the totality of the circumstances, namely, the established relationship between appellant No.1 and the 22 deceased, the motive proved by the prosecution, the disclosure statement leading to recovery of the concealed dead body, the medical evidence confirming homicidal death, and the conduct of appellant No.1, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the guilt of appellant No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is complete and points unerringly towards his guilt. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed upon appellant No.1 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The appeal preferred by appellant No.1 Ajay Singh Kanwar deserves to be dismissed. 34. However, the position concerning appellant No.2 Narayan Maitri stands on a different footing. The prosecution has not produced any direct evidence showing his participation in the act of murder. The primary circumstance relied upon against him is the disclosure statement of co-accused appellant No.1. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the memorandum statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and cannot by itself form the foundation for conviction. Reference may be made to Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159 and Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam, (2004) 7 SCC 779. 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 14 SCC 640 has observed that the discovery of facts under Section 27 information regarding other accused persons, to establish charge of conspiracy, in furtherance 23 of common intention would be admissible. The Supreme Court in such case at para 16, 17 & 18 has held as under:- “16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottayha v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 and held thus : (Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600, SCC p. 704, paras 125-27) “125. We are of the view that Kottaya case [AIR 1947 PC 67] is an authority for the proposition that “discovery of fact” cannot be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. 126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage extracted supra was highlighted in several decisions of this Court. 127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000) 6 SCC 269. Thomas J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, para 35) '35 ...The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was 24 produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.' In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828, Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression “fact discovered” in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case, AIR 1947 PC 67. The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832, para 13) '13...Now it is fairly settled that the expression ‘fact discovered’ includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. [1962 Supp (2) SCR 830]).” 17. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu AIR 2000 SC 1691 the statement made by the accused that the dead body of the child was carried up to a particular spot and a broken glass piece recovered from the spot was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement leading to the discovery of a fact that accused had carried dead body by a particular motorcycle up to the said spot would be admissible in evidence. This Court has laid down thus : (SCC pp. 282-83, paras 35-38) “35. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the 25 principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non- inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. 36. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered”. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle. 37. How did the particular information led to the discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent 26 to the information which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that the Investigating Officer discovered the fact that A-2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that particular motorcycle up to the spot. 38. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji Section 27 that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the abovementioned extent.” 18. In Ismail v. Emperor AIR 1946 Sind 43 it was held that where as a result of information given by the accused another co-accused was found by the police the statement by the accused made to the Police as to the whereabouts of the co-accused was held to be admissible under section 27 as evidence against the accused.” 36. Apart from the disclosure made by appellant No.1, the prosecution has relied upon recovery of a sabbal pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant No.2. However, there is no forensic evidence connecting the recovered article with the actual act of murder. Consequently, the evidence on record is insufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellant No.2 shared 27 the common intention to commit murder or actively participated in causing the death of the deceased. Accordingly, his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained. 37. Nevertheless, the circumstances appearing on record clearly establish that appellant No.2 assisted in concealment of the dead body after the commission of the offence. The recovery proceedings, the conduct attributed to him during investigation, and the surrounding circumstances sufficiently establish his knowledge regarding the concealment of the dead body and his participation in causing disappearance of evidence of the offence. These circumstances satisfactorily bring his act within the ambit of Section 201 IPC. 38. As regards sentence, the records indicate that appellant No.2, Narayan Maitri is in jail since 28.04.2022 and has already undergone substantial incarceration during investigation, trial and pendency of the appeal. Having regard to the nature of his role, the fact that his conviction for murder is being set aside, the period already undergone by him, and the principles governing proportionality of punishment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by sentencing him to the period already undergone for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 28 39. Consequently, the appeal preferred by appellant No.1 Ajay Singh Kanwar is dismissed. His conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are affirmed. 40. The appeal preferred by appellant No.2 Narayan Maitri is partly allowed. His conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC are set aside. However, his conviction under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC is maintained. The sentence awarded to him for the said offence is modified to the period already undergone by him. If not required in any other case, appellant No.2 Narayan Maitri shall be released forthwith. 41. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) appellant No.2 Narayan Maitri is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the CrPC for a sum of Rs.25000/- with 2 reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 42. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 29 43. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where appellant No.1 Ajay Singh Kanwar is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra