Section 27 Evidence Act| Disclosure Statement Not Admissible In Evidence If Alleged Discovery Was Not Made Pursuant To That Statement: SC
The Supreme Court has held that a disclosure statement is not admissible in evidence if the alleged discovery was not made pursuant to that statement.
The Court acquitted two convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC in 1997 after reiterating that the Courts must be cautious that the prosecution makes no effort to make out a statement of an accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact to attract Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act). The Bench noted that the disclosure statement in this case was recorded at the police station whereas recovery was made from the place pointed out by the Appellans enroute to the police station.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra pointed out, “The disclosure statement was not admissible in evidence because the alleged discovery was not made pursuant to that statement. Disclosure statement was recorded at the police station whereas recovery was made from the place pointed out by the accused enroute to the police station. It was, therefore, a case of recovery from the place allegedly pointed out by the accused and not based on a disclosure statement.”
AOR Nidhi represented the Appellants, while Advocate Anubha Dhulia appeared for the Respondent.
An FIR was lodged by the cousin of the deceased, whose body was found outside a shop, alleging that the Appellants had murdered him. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court convicted the Appellants, with the High Court altering the conviction from Section 302 (Murder) to Section 304 Part I (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder) of the IPC.
The Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which altered the conviction of the Appellants to Section 304 Part I of the IPC from Section 302 of the IPC by the Trial Court. The Bench held that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence required to prove the guilt of an accused and stated that the case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. It held that circumstances must form a complete chain, unerringly pointing to the guilt of an accused.
The Bench noted that the evidence of the deceased being last seen with the Appellants was not conclusive, as the location where they were allegedly seen together was distant from the place where the body was found. Noting the time gap between the deceased being last seen alive and the discovery of his body, the Bench stated, “Where the time-gap is large, intervening circumstances including act by some third person cannot be ruled out.”
The Court referred to its decision in Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2019), a three-Judge Bench held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt and the other to his innocence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of one which is favorable to him.
The Court also cautioned against the misuse of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) while reiterating its decision in Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka (2007), wherein it was held, "As the section is alleged to be frequently misused by the police, the courts are required to be vigilant about its application. The court must ensure the credibility of evidence by police because this provision is vulnerable to abuse. It does not, however, mean that any statement made in terms of the aforesaid section should be seen with suspicion and it cannot be discarded only on the ground that it was made to a police officer during investigation. The court has to be cautious that no effort is made by the prosecution to make out a statement of the accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of section 27 of the Evidence Act."
“Quite often on a public path a person may happen to walk side by side a stranger for a considerable distance without even talking to him. Likewise, a person may exchange pleasantries with another person walking on the path, but that by itself is not sufficient to infer that the two are in company of each other,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “Since we have held that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of incriminating circumstances, the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges for which they have been tried and convicted. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges for which they have been tried and convicted.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Suresh Chandra Tiwari & Anr. v. State Of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 907)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Nidhi
Respondent: Advocate Anubha Dhulia; AOR Suveni Bhagat