To Prove S.27 Evidence Act Statement, Investigating Officer Must Narrate What Accused Stated; Merely Exhibiting Memorandum Not Enough : Supreme Court

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court has discussed how to prove a disclosure statement made by an accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court noted that the statement of an accused recorded by a police officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is basically a "memorandum of confession" of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer during interrogation which has been taken down in writing. This statement is admissible only to the extent it leads to the discovery of new facts.

Regarding the manner of proving this statement, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant observed :

"...when the Investigating Officer steps into the witness box for proving such disclosure statement, he would be required to narrate what the accused stated to him. The Investigating Officer essentially testifies about the conversation held between himself and the accused which has been taken down into writing leading to the discovery of incriminating fact(s)."

The judgment referred to the precedents Subramanya v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887 and Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843 which held that mere exhibiting of the memorandum of confession during the trial cannot amount to the proof of its contents.

"While testifying on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement," the Court stated in the instant case. 

In this case, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer gave no description at all of the conversation which had transpired between himself and the accused which was recorded in the disclosure statements. Hence, the Court held that these disclosure statements cannot be read in evidence and the recoveries made in furtherance thereof are non est in the eyes of law.

The bench was hearing the appeals filed by three convicts challenging the Karnataka High Court's judgment which convicted them in a murder case and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment reversing acquittal by the trial court.

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction citing several loopholes in the evidence.

Case Title : Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Click here to read the judgment