Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, while rejecting a bail plea under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, held that the recovery of the victim’s body and severed head at the instance of the accused forms the most incriminating link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Justice Amit Borkar, delivering the order, observed:
“The discovery of the dead body is not a neutral fact—it directly connects the accused to the very act of homicide or its concealment.”
The Court concluded that the circumstances collectively formed a coherent and complete chain pointing toward the accused’s involvement in the brutal murder and disposal of the body, thereby justifying the rejection of bail.
Facts
The prosecution alleged that the applicant beheaded his acquaintance after a monetary dispute and disposed of the dismembered body in multiple gunny bags. The deceased had reportedly lent the accused ₹57,000. When he demanded repayment, a quarrel ensued during which the accused allegedly killed him with a fish-cutting knife, beheaded him, and distributed the remains across several locations.
After the victim went missing, his brother lodged a missing complaint, later converted into an FIR upon discovery of the body. The accused was arrested on 15 July 2023, and during interrogation, made disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to the recovery of the torso and head. CCTV footage showed the accused carrying gunny bags at odd hours, further linking him to the crime.
The accused sought regular bail, arguing that the case was purely circumstantial, the recoveries were staged, and the body was found in an open area accessible to others.
Issues
- Whether the recovery of the victim’s body and head at the instance of the accused could be treated as decisive evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the circumstantial chain—comprising recovery, last-seen theory, and CCTV footage—was strong enough to deny bail.
- Whether the absence of direct evidence weakened the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defence contended that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, lacking eyewitnesses. They questioned the credibility of the recoveries, asserting that the body was already known to the police before the accused’s alleged disclosure.
They further argued that the CCTV footage failed to show any visible bloodstains on the bag the accused allegedly carried—an improbable omission if the bag contained a severed head. The defence also claimed that the alleged loan transaction lacked evidence, and that witnesses did not observe any tension or quarrel between the two men before the incident.
It was argued that the disclosure statements were recorded within 18 minutes of arrest, suggesting a fabricated recovery. Moreover, the body was recovered from a publicly accessible area, diluting the prosecution’s version of “exclusive knowledge.”
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing that the recovery of the body and head pursuant to the accused’s disclosure was a strong incriminating circumstance. The CCTV footage corroborated the last-seen theory and showed the accused carrying a gunny bag on a scooter in the early morning hours.
Witness Rohit Kumar confirmed that the accused had woken him around 4:00 a.m., claiming a goat had died and needed disposal. Believing him, Rohit helped carry the bag, for which he was later paid ₹200. The prosecution argued that this statement, coupled with CCTV footage, established an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing toward the accused’s guilt.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which renders admissible only that portion of a confession leading to the discovery of a fact. Justice Borkar clarified that such discovery carries greater evidentiary value when it concerns a dead body rather than a weapon or object, as it directly connects the accused to the act of concealment.
The Court noted three possible explanations when an accused reveals the location of a body:
- He himself concealed it.
- He saw someone else conceal it.
- He was informed by another.
Since the accused offered no explanation for his knowledge, the Court held that the only plausible inference was that he personally concealed the body.
Justice Borkar emphasized:
“When an accused points out the place of concealment and fails to explain how he knew of it, the presumption that he was personally responsible for its concealment is both natural and justified.”
Thus, the recovery of the body was held to be a crucial evidentiary link, forming the backbone of the prosecution’s case.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on established principles from Section 27 jurisprudence and the “last seen together” doctrine, reaffirmed in several precedents:
- Pulukuri Kottayya v. King Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67): The Privy Council explained that only the portion of a statement directly leading to discovery is admissible, a principle reiterated here.
- State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471: The Supreme Court held that recovery of a body under Section 27 implies personal knowledge and, in absence of explanation, supports a presumption of concealment by the accused.
- Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45: Clarified that “last seen” proximity, when coupled with recovery, can form a complete chain for conviction.
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681: Reiterated that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient if the chain of circumstances excludes every hypothesis except guilt.
Justice Borkar applied these principles, observing that the combination of last seen, recovery, and disclosure was enough to form a strong prima facie case, rendering bail unjustified.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the recovery of the torso and head, coupled with CCTV evidence and witness testimony, created an unbroken chain pointing to the accused’s guilt.
It rejected the defence’s claim regarding the absence of bloodstains, noting that CCTV footage is not expected to capture microscopic details such as stains or shades due to distance and lighting conditions.
The Court also observed that decomposition of the body, which hindered precise determination of the time of death, did not undermine the circumstantial chain. The last-seen theory, supported by CCTV and witness statements, remained probative and persuasive.
Further, the accused’s post-offence conduct—misleading witnesses by claiming the bag contained a dead goat and failing to report the incident—was held to reflect conscious guilt.
The Court reiterated that at the bail stage, it must only assess whether a prima facie case exists, not conduct a forensic evaluation of each piece of evidence.
Conclusion
The Court held that the recovery of the victim’s body parts pursuant to the accused’s disclosure under Section 27, corroborated by CCTV footage and witness statements, formed a strong prima facie case.
Observing that the offence was grave, brutal, and deliberate, Justice Borkar concluded:
“Personal liberty must yield to the larger interest of justice and societal safety when the evidence forms a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.”
Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the probative strength of discoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, especially when the recovery involves the victim’s body. It emphasizes that such discoveries—when unexplained—constitute a substantive link in circumstantial cases.
The decision also clarifies that CCTV footage need not display perfect detail to corroborate the chain of events and that last-seen circumstances, when paired with recovery and disclosure, can be decisive in denying bail for heinous offences.
