‘Families First Search On Their Own’: Supreme Court Says 3-Day Delay In Missing Complaint Not Fatal To Prosecution

The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to a man for abducting and killing a woman for ransom in 2009, in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Court rejected the accused’s argument that the three-day delay in lodging the missing person report weakened the prosecution’s case, holding that such a delay was neither excessive nor unusual.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi said that when a family member goes missing, families usually hope for the person’s return and first try to search on their own before approaching the police. Therefore, a delay in filing a missing report by itself cannot destroy the prosecution’s case, Court held. 

Court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the dead body had not been properly identified. It said the absence of DNA testing does not weaken the prosecution’s case when there are credible and consistent testimonies from witnesses who personally knew the deceased.

In the present case, the Bench noted that while in police custody, the appellant disclosed information that led to the recovery of the deceased woman’s body, which had been stuffed in a sack and thrown into a well. Court said this discovery was a “distinct fact” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because only someone with personal knowledge of the disposal of the body could have revealed its exact location.

“The recovery embodies the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events,” Court said, adding that the actual recovery of the body from the exact place disclosed by the accused guaranteed the truthfulness of the information supplied by him.

According to the Court, the discovery not only established the location from where the body was recovered but also showed the appellant’s knowledge of its existence there. Since this information was not publicly known and could not have been discovered through routine investigation, it formed a strong link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the appellant’s guilt.

Appellant Neelu alias Nilesh Koshti had challenged a 2023 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh high court, which upheld his conviction for the murder of Archana alias Pinki and for destruction of evidence.

The prosecution case was that Archana went missing in July 2009, after which her mother lodged a police complaint on July 28, 2009. Investigation revealed that her SIM card continued to be used till August 1, 2009. It was alleged that the appellant, along with his friend Jai, conspired to abduct Archana to extort money from her husband. Though her husband Rajesh agreed to pay the ransom amount of Rs 5 lakh, she was murdered and her body was later disposed of in a well.

While examining the appeal, the Bench noted that both the trial court and the high court relied on the testimony of Rajesh to establish that ransom calls were made from the deceased woman’s mobile phone.

Court also questioned how the appellant came into possession of the deceased’s mobile phone while she was missing, observing that this circumstance warranted an adverse inference against him.

The Bench clarified that mere possession of the deceased’s belongings may not by itself prove murder, but when read together with the other circumstances on record, it strongly pointed towards the appellant’s involvement in the crime.

Court further observed that although Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act bar the admissibility of confessions made before police officers, Section 27 acts as an exception. In this case, the recovery of the dead body from a well near Tasaali Dhaba on Indore Bypass Road, based on the appellant’s disclosure while in custody, fulfilled all the requirements of Section 27.

Bench also rejected the appellant’s argument regarding the absence of DNA testing. It additionally noted that the recovery of the deceased’s Scooty at the instance of the appellant showed his exclusive knowledge about the whereabouts of her belongings after she went missing, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.

Court highlighted that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, proving motive is not always necessary if the chain of circumstances is complete and conclusively points to the guilt of the accused.

“In the present case, while the motive of financial gain through extortion strengthens the prosecution’s case, the conviction does not rest solely on motive but on the complete chain of circumstances established through credible evidence,” the Bench observed.

After examining all the circumstances individually and collectively, Court held that the prosecution had successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of evidence pointing unmistakably towards the appellant’s guilt.

“No other reasonable conclusion is possible except for the inference that the appellant committed the murder of Archana alias Pinki,” the Bench said, while agreeing with the findings of both the trial court and the high court.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit. However, considering that the appellant has already undergone more than 15 years of imprisonment, Court allowed him to apply for remission, which would be considered in accordance with the applicable policy.

Case Title: Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Judgment: February 20, 2026