S. 27 Evidence Act | Statement Of Accused Inadmissible If No New Fact Is Discovered Pursuant To Disclosure: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the disclosure made by an accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is irrelevant if the fact was previously known to the police.

The Court held so while reversing the conviction in a murder case. The Court held that the disclosure of the accused regarding the crime scene was irrelevant as this fact was already known to the police. Hence, the statement was not admissible under Section 27.

"The circumstance regarding identification of place of incident at the instance of the accused is also inadmissible because the crime scene was already known to the police and no new fact was discovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements," the Court held.

“Investigating Officer(PW-18) deposed that he arrested the accused persons. A detailed enquiry was made from all three accused-appellants, and they were examined for the injuries found on their bodies. Thereafter, all the accused-appellants conveyed their willingness to show the place of the offence and thereafter, panchnama as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared. Since the place of incident was also known to police, this disclosure is irrelevant.”, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said.

Being an exception to the general rule that no evidence given in police custody would be admissible, Section 27 of the Evidence Act makes such discoveries/disclosures relevant which are based on the statements made by the accused while in the police custody.

In a recent judgment of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 316, the Court underscored the importance of the conversation held between the investigating officer and the accused. The court said that the failure of the Investigating Officer to describe the conversation that had transpired between himself and the accused would make the evidence and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof inadmissible.

“On a perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer(PW18), we find his evidence on the aspect of disclosure statements made by the accused-appellant leading to the recoveries to be totally perfunctory and unacceptable. The witness did not elaborate upon the words spoken by the accused-appellant at the time of making the disclosure statements.”, the court said.

Failure To Prove Safe Custody Of Recovered Items Renders FSL Report Insignificant

In the present case, the police Constable was present at the crime scene carried the weapons used in the crime to the police station and deposited them at the police station. However, the police Constable was unable to state in his evidence as to whom he had given the knife and the gupti which he picked up from the crime scene.

Later on, based on the accused section 27 statements a discovery was made of the weapons which were sent to FSL. An FSL report stated that the blood group found on the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused matched with the blood group of the deceased.

However, the court upon placing reliance on the case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724 said that this cannot be considered sufficient to link the accused with the crime as the sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused.

The court termed the FSL report as insignificant after it found out that the prosecution hadn't examined any witness who had deposed about the link evidence/safe custody of the mudammal articles right from the time they were received at the police station and seized till the time the same reached the FSL.

“Hence, we are of the firm view that neither the disclosure statements made by the accused were proved as per law nor the same resulted into any discovery which could be accepted as incriminating inasmuch as the requisite link evidence was never presented by the prosecution so as to establish that the recovered articles remained in the self-safe condition from the date of the seizure till the same reached the FSL.”, the court held.

Thus, a benefit of doubt was given to the accused as the prosecution was not able to its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearances:

For Appellant(s) For Appellant/ Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Accused No.3 Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Sangwan, Adv.

For Appellant/ Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR Accused No.1 Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Adv.

For Appellant/ Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR Accused No.2

For Respondent(s) Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv.

Case Details: ALLARAKHA HABIB MEMON ETC. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2828-2829 OF 2023

Click here to read/download the judgment