The Supreme Court of India, while upholding a life sentence in a 2009 abduction and murder case, extensively clarified the scope of “discovery of fact” under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Division Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi ruled that mere recovery of an object does not constitute a discovery of fact, emphasizing that it also includes the place of production and the accused’s knowledge of its existence.
The Court made these observations while dismissing the criminal appeal in the case of Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 5357 of 2025), thereby affirming the concurrent judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Trial Court. The appellant, who has served over 15 years in prison, was granted the liberty to apply for remission.
Background of the Case
The factual matrix of the case revolves around the disappearance of Archana @ Pinki on July 25, 2009. Her mother filed a missing person report at the Pardeshipura Police Station in Indore three days later. Subsequent to her disappearance, the deceased’s husband, Rajesh, received ransom calls demanding Rs. 5 lakh, notably made from the deceased’s own mobile number.
During the investigation, police traced the deceased’s mobile phone to a purchaser who had bought it from the appellant, Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti. The appellant was arrested on August 10, 2009, and his memorandum statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Pursuant to this disclosure, the police and the Fire Brigade recovered the deceased’s body, which was stuffed in a sack and thrown into a well near Tasaali Dhaba on the Indore bypass Road. Additionally, the deceased’s Scooty was recovered from a railway station parking lot based on the appellant’s specific information.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirmed this conviction in 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel challenged the conviction on multiple grounds: a three-day delay in lodging the missing report, lack of substantive evidence regarding the ransom calls, and the failure of the Investigating Officer to obtain call detail records for the deceased’s mobile phone. Furthermore, the defense questioned the identification of the deceased, arguing that the body was recovered in a decomposed state and no DNA testing was conducted.
The respondent-State argued that the judgments of the lower courts should be sustained, contending that the chain of circumstances was complete and exclusively pointed to the appellant’s guilt.
The Court’s Analysis
As the conviction rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court tested the facts against the five essential principles for circumstantial evidence laid down in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984).
Explanation of Section 27 Evidence Act: The core of the Supreme Court’s analysis focused on the recoveries made at the instance of the appellant. The Court explained that while Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act render confessions made to police officers inadmissible, Section 27 serves as a crucial exception.
Relying on Udai Bhan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed: “A discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.”
The Bench further elaborated on this by citing Bodhraj Alias Bodha vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, noting that Section 27 is embedded in the “doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.” When a fact is discovered based on information from a prisoner in police custody, “such discovery serves as a guarantee of the truthfulness of the information supplied.”
Crucially, the Court drew upon the Privy Council’s decision in Pulukuri Kottayya vs. King Emperor to define the exact parameters of a discovery. The Court stated that “the ‘fact discovered’ embraces not merely the object recovered, but the place from which the object was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence, and that the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.”
Applying this legal framework to the facts, the Court held that the recovery of the body from the specific well and the Scooty from the parking stand constituted distinct facts. “The actual discovery of the body from the exact location disclosed by the appellant is a guarantee that the information supplied by him is true. The fact discovered embraces the place from where the object was recovered… and the knowledge of the appellant as to its existence at that location,” the Bench noted, adding that this information was not in the public domain.
Medical Evidence and Identification: Addressing the defense’s argument regarding the decomposed body, the Court highlighted that the body was partially preserved due to the clothing worn and handkerchiefs tied around the victim’s mouth and arm. To address the lack of DNA testing, the Court relied on scientific literature (A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Jaising P. Modi), which states that the rate of putrefaction is twice as slow in water compared to air. Consequently, the Court accepted the positive identification made by the deceased’s brother-in-law and her regular auto-rickshaw driver based on her clothing and recognizable face.
Other Circumstances: The Court dismissed the arguments regarding the delayed FIR, noting that a three-day delay is not unusual as families naturally conduct their own searches first. The Court also affirmed that the ransom calls were adequately proved through call detail records and the testimony of a cellular nodal officer. On the point of motive, the Court cited Mulakh Raj vs. Satish Kumar, stating, “Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved.”
Decision
Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.
“No other reasonable conclusion is possible except for the inference that the appellant committed the murder of Archana @ Pinki,” the Court stated.
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit. However, recognizing that the appellant has already served more than 15 years, the Court directed the State to consider his case for remission in accordance with applicable policies upon his application.
- Case Title: Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5357 of 2025
