Circumstantial Evidence and Section 27 Recovery Can Sustain Murder Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence

Case Name: Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 INSC 173; Criminal Appeal No. 5357 of 2025

Date of Judgment/Order: 20 February 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Held: The Supreme Court held that a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence where the prosecution establishes a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused. Recovery of the dead body and incriminating articles pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of the victim’s belongings, and other surrounding facts.

Summary: The case arose from the disappearance of Archana @ Pinki on 25 July 2009, after which her husband received ransom calls demanding INR 5 lakh from her mobile phone. Investigation revealed that the deceased’s phone had been sold by the appellant to another person shortly after her disappearance. On 10 August 2009, the appellant made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which led to the recovery of the deceased’s body from a well near Indore bypass road, where it had been stuffed in a sack. The prosecution further established that the deceased’s scooty was recovered from a parking stand at the instance of the appellant, and medical evidence confirmed that the death was homicidal, caused by ligature strangulation. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the High Court affirmed the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conviction on grounds including delay in filing the missing report, absence of direct evidence, and lack of DNA identification. The Court rejected these contentions and held that delay in lodging a missing report is not unusual in such circumstances. It further held that the identification of the deceased through witnesses who knew her personally was reliable despite partial decomposition of the body, and that the recovery of the body and articles at the appellant’s disclosure constituted a vital link in the chain of circumstances. Applying the principles governing circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court concluded that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code with life imprisonment was affirmed; however, considering that the appellant had already undergone more than fifteen years of imprisonment, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to apply for remission which the State was directed to consider in accordance with applicable policy.