Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Manoj Kumar 2026 INSC 539 - Evidence Law

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - When recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could be placed on such recoveries. (Para 32)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - If the accused fails to present a credible explanation regarding facts within his special knowledge, this failure constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence established against him. At the same time, it must be emphasized that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not shift the primary burden of proof, which in a criminal trial always remains on the prosecution. (Para 35)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - To convict the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the incriminating 22 circumstances on which it proposes to rely; the circumstance(s) relied upon must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the accused’s guilt and must form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability it is the accused and no one else who had committed the crime and they (it) must exclude all other hypothesis inconsistent with his guilt and consistent with his innocence.  (Para 42) [Context: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances: recoveries were doubtful or from open places, identification of articles lacked proper Test Identification Parade, the “last seen” evidence against one accused was too weak, and the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of an accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.]