Section 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Of A Weapon From An Open Place Accessible To All Not Reliable : Supreme Court
The Court recently held that incriminatory objects, when discovered in places accessible to the public, cannot be solely relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused persons. It is pertinent to note that for admissibility under section 27, of the Evidence Act, the fact discovered must be a direct consequence of information received from a person in custody.The Court relied on Nikhil...
The Court recently held that incriminatory objects, when discovered in places accessible to the public, cannot be solely relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused persons. It is pertinent to note that for admissibility under section 27, of the Evidence Act, the fact discovered must be a direct consequence of information received from a person in custody.
The Court relied on Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171 which had held that “the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law. However, this circumstance which, in our view, could not have been used, has been employed by the High Court to seek corroboration to the extrajudicial confession.”
Further, it referred to Jaikam Khan v. State of UP (2021) 13 SCC 716 , where the court had opined that “It could thus be seen that the recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could be placed on such recoveries.”
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court which reversed the acquittal granted by the trial court and convicted the 6 appellants for offenses under Section 304 Part II IPC to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years while upholding the acquittal of the rest.
At the outset, the court discussed the conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It relied on the Privy Council's decision in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor which was subsequent affirmation in Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra to do so as follows-
- The discovery of a fact must be in consequence of information from a person accused of an offense.
- The discovery of such a fact must be deposed.
- The accused must be in police custody at the time of receiving the information.
It highlighted that only "so much of the information" as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible under section 27, of the Evidence Act. It was observed that “The phrase “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered” is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery.”
Applying the principles so discussed, the court was prima facie satisfied that all the 3 necessary conditions were met. But the court endorsed the trial court's approach which discarded this evidence since the recoveries were made in public places or areas where other individuals also resided.
The Court finally observed, “We, further cannot lose sight of the fact that sticks, whether bamboo or otherwise, are commonplace objects in village life, and therefore, such objects, being hardly out of the ordinary, and that too discovered in places of public access, cannot be used to place the gauntlet of guilt on the accused persons.”
Consequently, the court set aside the conviction awarded by the HC on the appellants.
Also from the judgment -Examination Of Person Who Recorded Dying Declaration Essential: Supreme Court
Case title: Manjunath v. State of Karnataka
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 866 OF 2011, 2023 INSC 978