Jaipur, November 4, 2026: Disclosure-based recoveries alone can't prove murder: Rajasthan High Court acquits three in Bundi case. The PinkCity Post reported the development in a detailed account.

According to The PinkCity Post, Rajasthan High Court acquits three men in a Bundi murder case, holding that Section 27 Evidence Act recoveries alone cannot sustain a conviction.

Home » Rajasthan HC Jaipur » Disclosure-based recoveries alone can’t prove murder: Rajasthan High Court acquits three in Bundi case The bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted three men convicted of murder in Bundi, holding that recoveries made on their disclosure statements cannot alone prove guilt. The prosecution had no eyewitness and no ‘last seen’ evidence, the Court said. A division bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal said the prosecution had not proved a complete chain of circumstances.

It found the evidence “sketchy and not sufficient warranting conviction against the appellants”. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, had sentenced Kalaam, Vishnu Nayak and Lokesh alias Mongya to life imprisonment for the murder of Shankar, whose body was found in a vacant plot with a deep neck wound. With no direct evidence, the case rested on circumstantial evidence.

The Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution had proved a complete chain of circumstances. The Bench disagreed, applying the five principles on circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra . It first held that the disclosure statements led to no new discovery.

The police had already prepared a site plan of the crime scene days earlier. No shop employee was examined to show that the deceased had bought liquor with the accused. Kalaam’s case turned on cash, a shirt and a knife.

The Court said the Rs 6,700 was neither blood-stained nor marked, and the witness who allegedly gave the money to the deceased did not know its denominations. The shirt and knife were found lying openly in an almirah in a house shared by his family. The prosecution did not prove that he owned or exclusively possessed that room.

The “B” blood group found on the items was not shown to match the deceased. Lokesh was linked to a mobile phone seized from his house. The Court found no proof that the phone belonged to the deceased.

It also found the call records unproved, as no telecom company officer was examined and the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was not proved. The Court refused to treat a defence suggestion to the investigating officer, that the phone was recovered from Lokesh, as an admission. Without other incriminating evidence, it said, such a suggestion could not support a conviction.

Vishnu Nayak was linked only through a motorcycle recovered from an open verandah with no lock on the main gate. The prosecution never proved that the bike belonged to the deceased or his father, as no registration paper was exhibited. The Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Khalil Pasha v Abdul Rasheed , which said: “Section 27 recovery alone cannot lead to a conviction”.

The report is filed here under Crime. The PinkCity Post is the account this copy follows, and the article above keeps the detail that report gave. Nothing beyond those reported details is added.