S.27 Evidence Act | To Use Statement Of Accused On Fact Discovery, Prosecution Must Establish No One Else Had Information About It : Supreme Court
To convict an accused based on the statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution must establish the fact that the discovery of the evidence based on the statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must not be known to anyone before the information was given by the accused. “The prosecution will have to...
To convict an accused based on the statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution must establish the fact that the discovery of the evidence based on the statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must not be known to anyone before the information was given by the accused.
“The prosecution will have to establish that, before the information given by the accused persons on the basis of which the dead body was recovered, nobody had the knowledge about the existence of the dead body at the place from where it was recovered.”, the Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed.
The case relates to the conviction of the accused by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, Sections 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the discovery of the dead body was claimed to made by the police based on the accused statements under Section 27 of Evidence Act while he was in police custody. The conviction was affirmed by the High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the accused that the conviction could not be sustained as the discovery of the evidence i.e., the dead body was not done based on the statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as the prosecution had failed to establish that nobody had knowledge of the existence of the dead body at the place from where it was recovered.
Finding force in the accused contentions, the Judgment authored by Justice BR Gavai observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as "the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the pond at Bhatgaon was only based on the disclosure statement made by the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that nobody knew about the same before that."
“A perusal of the evidence of Narendra Kumar (PW-2) read with that of Ramkumar (PW-5) would clearly reveal that the police as well as these witnesses knew about the death of Dharmendra Satnami occurring and the dead body being found at Bhatgaon prior to the statements of the accused persons being recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.”, the court observed.
Based on the above premise, the court acquitted the accused while allowing the appeal of the accused while setting aside the order of the conviction.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, AOR Ms. Ananya Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Adv. Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv. Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv. Mr. Upendra Narayan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR Ms. Nishi Prabha Singh, Adv. Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv. Mr. V. Ramasubbu, Adv. Mr. Rishesh Sikarwar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Praneet Pranav, Dy. A.G. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR
Case Title: RAVISHANKAR TANDON vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 296