Section 27 Evidence Act Vulnerable To Abuse, Courts Must Be Vigilant : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in its verdict delivered on January 03, while making somepertinent observations regarding Section 27 of the Evidence Act, also cautioned that the police frequently use this provision and the courts must be vigilant about its application. “Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to...
The Supreme Court, in its verdict delivered on January 03, while making somepertinent observations regarding Section 27 of the Evidence Act, also cautioned that the police frequently use this provision and the courts must be vigilant about its application.
“Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to abuse.” Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti.
The Court further clarified that this does not mean that every case where Section 27 has been invoked should be suspected and result in its discarding.
“However, this does not mean that in every case invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory and unworthy of credence.”
The Apex Court made these observations while hearing a criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Perumal), who was convicted for the murder of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth. While the appellant was detained in another case relating to the murder of Rajaram (Rajinikanth's father), he made a disclosure statement concerning the murder of Rajinikanth. Importantly, the police, accordingly, proceeded on the leads and recovered the parts of the deceased. Thus, the appellant was arrested based on this disclosure statement.
Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the murder of Rajnikanth under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court affirmed this conviction and his sentence of life imprisonment. Against this backdrop, the matter traveled to the Apex Court.
The judgment, authored by Justice Khanna, made certain noteworthy observations with respect to the expression 'custody' used under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court observed that the pre-requisite of police custody, within this Section, ought to be read pragmatically. It held that 'custody' does not mean formal custody and includes any kind of restriction, restraint, or even surveillance by the police.
Furthermore, the Court, after examining the case of the prosecution, observed:
"Thus, a distinction has to be drawn between incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance after a chain is complete and the defence or explanation given by the accused is found to be false, in which event the said falsehood is added to reinforce the conclusion of the court."
Based on this, the Court observed that the appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has plainly denied all accusations without any explanation. Therefore, the Court drew a reasonable adverse inference, thus forming an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The additional link further affirms the conclusion of guilt as indicated by the prosecution evidence., the Court held.
In view of these facts and circumstances, the Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant. The Court marked that the judgment of acquittal would not qualify as relevant and of evidentiary value to acquit the appellant.
Other reports about the judgment can be read here.
Case Title: PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., Diary No.- 4802 - 2018.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8