Section 27 Of Evidence Act Is Attracted Even If Accused Isn't Arrested But Only Interrogated By Police: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently opined that even if the accused has not been arrested, if a dead body is discovered pursuant to the information elicited from the accused during police interrogation, the same would be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I and Justice Mayank Kumar Jain observed thus while relying upon the Allahabad High Court's ruling in the case of Sangam Lal Vs. State of U.P. 2002 (44) ACC 288.

In the Sangam Lal case (supra), a division bench of the HC had observed that in order to attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is not necessary that the accused should have been under arrest and it is enough if he has come into the hands of a police officer or is under some sort of surveillance or restriction.

With this, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellant/accused (Vidya Devi) who killed her daughter-in-law in connivance with her son (husband of the deceased) and husband in the year 1984. Finding that she is presently on bail, the Court canceled her personal bonds and surety bonds and ordered that she be sent to jail to serve the remaining part of her sentence (life imprisonment).

The case in brief

Asha Devi (deceased), daughter of the complainant was married to Ram Kripal. Her husband and in-laws used to blame her and harass her for dowry. The complainant did not accept the proposal to get his second daughter married to Ram Kripal, so the husband and in-laws of his daughter killed her on August 23, 1983 and caused the disappearance of her dead body.

After receiving the written report filed by the complainant, police reached the house of the appellant along with him and other persons. During the interrogation with the present appellant Vidya Devi, the manner of commission of the crime was narrated by her that on a preceding night, Ram Kripal (her son) and Netrapal (her husband) held the hands and feet of Asha Devi and strangulated her to death and thereafter, threw her dead body in the well with the assistance of the other accused. Upon her pointing out, the dead body of Asha Devi was recovered from the well. The Complainant identified the dead body as his daughter.

Hearing both sides and after appreciating the evidence, facts, and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court found them guilty under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment for killing the deceased.

Thereafter, they challenged their conviction before the High Court. During the pendency of the matter, the son and husband of the accused Vidya Devi died, and therefore, the proceedings against them stood abated, and now, the appeal was heard only in respect of the accused before the court, Vidya Devi.

Before the HC, it was argued that since the appellant Vidya Devi had not been arrayed as an accused and had not been taken into custody till the time of making the alleged statement about the fact that she along with other co-accused had thrown the dead body of the deceased Asha Devi into the nearby well of their house, therefore, the information relating to the discovery of the dead body of the deceased Asha Devi cannot be considered to be the information as provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence as there was no direct evidence that can suggest that the appellant had committed the murder of Asha Devi. Therefore, the Court examined the circumstances of the case to conclude whether a chain of events leading to the guilt of the appellant was complete or not.

The Court noted that the prosecution could establish the motive behind the killing of the deceased as it noted that the appellants were not happy with the deceased Asha Devi and they had wanted to re-marry their son and therefore, had the motive to eliminate Asha Devi.

Regarding the medical evidence in the case, the Court noted that the medical evidence was quite consistent with the prosecution's case and that there was no material available on record to disbelieve the medical evidence.

Importantly, the Court took into account the evidence of PW3, since it connected the chain of events as he saw appellant Vidya Devi with other co-accused carrying the dead body of the deceased Asha Devi in a gunny bag which was later thrown into the nearby well by them to cause the disappearance of the evidence.

Regarding the argument made to defend the accused/appellant, the Court opined that it was not necessary that an accused be formally arrested before his/her statement leading to the discovery of incriminating material be made admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence act.

"...since the appellant, Vidya Devi was interrogated by the investigating officer and consequently she stated the manner of commission of the crime by her along with the other family members and that on her pointing out, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the well which was later identified by PW1 the informant/father of the deceased...therefore, the recovery of the dead body of the deceased Asha Devi on the pointing out of the appellant Vidya Devi is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act," the Court observed. 

Moreover, the Court also observed that the appellant Vidya Devi and the other co-accused did not offer any cogent explanation that they have not committed the murder of deceased Asha Devi and thus, the appellant failed to discharge her burden as cast upon her u/s 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Consequently, upholding the opinion of the trial court after finding the chain of circumstances to be complete, the appeal was dismissed.

Case title - Vidya Devi And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3333 of 1984]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 506

Click Here To Read/Download Order