The Supreme Court has ruled that disclosures made by an accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible if the facts were already known to the police.
In overturning a murder conviction, the Court found that the accused’s disclosure about the crime scene was irrelevant because the police were already aware of it. Therefore, the statement could not be admitted under Section 27.
The Court stated, “The identification of the crime scene by the accused is inadmissible because the location was already known to the police, and no new facts were uncovered as a result of the disclosure.”
The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, noted that the Investigating Officer had testified to arresting the accused and examining them for injuries. The accused then indicated their willingness to show the crime scene, leading to the preparation of a panchnama under Section 27. However, since the crime scene was already known, this disclosure was deemed irrelevant.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule that statements made in police custody are inadmissible. It makes discoveries or disclosures relevant only if they are based on statements made by the accused while in police custody.
In the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 316), the Court emphasized that the Investigating Officer’s failure to detail the conversation with the accused rendered the evidence and subsequent recoveries inadmissible. The Court found the Investigating Officer’s testimony on the disclosure statements and recoveries to be superficial and inadequate.
Additionally, the Court found the FSL report insignificant due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the safe custody of the recovered items. Although the FSL report matched the blood on the weapons to the deceased, the prosecution did not provide evidence linking the recovered items to the crime from seizure to the FSL analysis.
The Court referenced the case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724, stating that the recovery of bloodstained weapons alone was not enough to convict the accused without establishing a clear link to the murder.
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a benefit of doubt being given to the accused.
Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant
Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,
Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.
Human and Civil Rights Campaigner
President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in
YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum
NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet
WhatsApp +91 99877 43676