Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the discovery of a fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be conclusively proved to be in furtherance of an accused's confessional statement. The Court observed that if the discovery is not directly connected to the accused’s confessional statement, then the statement itself cannot be accepted as per the provisions of the Evidence Act.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident in which the deceased, a minor girl, was allegedly kidnapped by the appellant. Her father filed an FIR after she remained untraceable for four days. The appellant was subsequently arrested, and during the investigation, the deceased’s body was discovered near a railway track. The Trial Court convicted the appellant of murder, a decision later upheld by the High Court despite rejecting the extrajudicial confession.

The case before the Supreme Court arose from an appeal against this conviction under Sections 366(A), 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case relied on three key circumstantial pieces of evidence: the appellant being last seen with the deceased, an extrajudicial confession, and the recovery of the deceased’s body based on the accused’s alleged disclosure statement. The High Court had discarded the extrajudicial confession on the ground that it was made in the presence of the police, thus rendering it inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, it upheld the conviction based on the remaining two circumstances.

Supreme Court's Observations on Section 27 Evidence Act

The Supreme Court held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be read in conjunction with Section 26, which states that confessions made while in police custody are inadmissible unless made in the presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 provides an exception, allowing only that portion of an accused’s statement that distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact to be proved.

The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor that the discovery of a fact must establish the accused’s knowledge of its existence. The judgment states: “Applying the law relating to Section 27 of the Evidence Act as can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions, we find that the circumstance of leading to discovery is intrinsically connected with the circumstance of extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant and the other co-accused before PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-10 and PW-11.”

However, the Court found that prosecution witnesses had contradicted themselves regarding the recovery of the body. Some witnesses stated that they saw the body in the police station rather than at the location where the accused allegedly led the police. The Court highlighted these inconsistencies: “From the above, it is clear that except PW-6 none of the aforesaid witnesses have stated that they were present at the place from where the dead body was recovered by the police on being shown by the accused persons. They had only seen the dead body in the police station.”  Additionally, the Court noted that the accused was in jail at the time of the body’s recovery, casting doubt on whether he had actually led the police to the location. Given these discrepancies, the Court ruled that Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not support the prosecution’s case.

Circumstantial Evidence and Burden of Proof

The Supreme Court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of events that leave no room for doubt. It cited Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. State of Maharashtra, which held that conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence is justified only when all circumstances conclusively indicate the accused’s guilt. The judgment states: “When one of the three circumstances was disbelieved and discarded by the High Court, then the chain of circumstantial evidence could not have been held to be complete and proved and on that basis to hold the accused guilty of the offence. Each and every circumstance forming the chain of circumstantial evidence has to be proved.”

Absence of Motive and Non-Examination of Key Witnesses

The Court also noted a significant lacuna in the prosecution’s case: the failure to examine key witnesses. The deceased’s father had stated that the appellant’s mother and brother-in-law had assured him that they would arrange the deceased’s marriage with the appellant. However, these witnesses were never examined. The Court observed: “If indeed the version of PW-1 and PW-4 are to be believed, both the mother and brother-in-law of the appellant knew the whereabouts of the deceased girl. Therefore, they were material witnesses. Non-examination of such material witnesses has definitely dented the prosecution case.”

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that there was no established motive for the appellant to commit the crime since he and the deceased were in a consensual relationship and intended to marry. It relied on Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, which held that motive plays a crucial role in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

Verdict

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the discovery of the body was not proved to be in furtherance of the accused’s confessional statement, Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked to support the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant. “When the prosecution failed to prove each of the circumstances against the appellant, the courts below were not justified in convicting the appellant.”

Cause Title: Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan V. State of Assam.

Case No: Criminal Appeal No.1649 of 2011

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

[Read/Download order]