Much Reliance was placed by the prosecution regarding the recovery of dead body at the instances of the accused which was alleged to be the recovery made u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The evidence adduced in behalf of the prosecution was contradictory.

In the recovery memo,it had been alleged that the dead body of the deceased was recovered by the police at the instances of the accused - Appellante and the prosecution had examined Dy S.P who had proved the aforesaid recovery memo. The evidence on record in this regard was contradictory.

Constable 320CP stated in the very beginning in his examination -in-Chief itself on 10.9.1996 that he was informed at police station Kotwali Dehat ,Balrampur that a boy had been murdered and his dead body had been thrown in cane field.

This was contradicted by C.O according to which he had arrested the Accused appellant at about 1.30 PM and the cane field was about 1KM away from the place where the accused appellant was apprehended and that the dead body was recovered at about 2.30 -3.00 p.m .

The inquests memo however, showed that it was the informant who for the first time gave the information at police station regarding recovery of dead body. The circumstances as alleged by the prosecution regarding recovery of the dead body at the instances the accused had not been mentioned in the inquests report rather inquest report contradicted the prosecution case when it had been in the inquest report that the dead body was seen by the informant herself for the first time.

There was no evidence showing that the Accused was present near the place where the dead body was found. In a case of loke nature where the case was based on circumstantial evidence and where there was no evidence showing that the Accused was present near the place where the dead body was found and the evidence of the prosecution in this regard was contradictory, it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the alleged recovery of dead body u/s 27 of the Evidence Act was not acceptable as per ruling.

So the court found that the case of the prosecution based on circumstantial evidence was not believable and hence accused was acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 302/201/ 364 IPC and u/ s 3(2)(5) /S.C/ S T Act