Section 27 Evidence Act Is Frequently Used By Police; Courts Must Be Vigilant To Ensure Its Credibility As It Is Vulnerable To Abuse: Chhattisgarh HC
The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is frequently used by the police and therefore the Courts must be vigilant to ensure its credibility as the provision is vulnerable to abuse.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to abuse. However, this does not mean that in every case invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory and unworthy of credence.”
Advocate Samrath Singh Marhas appeared for the Appellants, while Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur appeared for the Respondent.
Five criminal appeals were filed assailing the judgment of conviction against the Appellants passed by the Sessions Court in a case arising out of offences under Section 302 read with Sections 120B, 201, 414 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The case of the prosecution was that one night, a trailer vehicle, which was driven by one Bodhan Prasad was returning after unloading coal and was headed towards the coal mine. The driver and helper had stopped the vehicle on the way and were sleeping in Kantaroli jungle near Harrapara. The Appellants attacked the driver and helper while they were sleeping on the road, took them to Kantaroli jungle, and after brutally assaulting them, strangulated them to death. They then abandoned the bodies in the jungle and sold the looted trailer in Haryana.
The Court said that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.
It added that the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.
As regards Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court observed, “The discovery of the fact resulting in recovery of a physical object exhibits knowledge or mental awareness of the person accused of the offence as to the existence of the physical object at the particular place. Accordingly, discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. To this extent therefore, factum of discovery combines both the physical object as well as the mental consciousness of the informant accused in relation thereto.”
The Court said that, after considering the evidence on record and statements of the witnesses, the prosecution failed to prove a single circumstance cogently could cause a snap in the chain of circumstances. It added that there could not be any gap in the chain of circumstances.
“When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”, the Court reiterated.
The Court then discussed the applicability of Section 412 of the IPC, i.e., the offence of dishonestly receiving the property. It said that for Section 412 of the IPC, the prosecution has to show something more than mere possession of the stolen goods. It said that the Police must show that (i) the receiver knew or had reason to believe that the property had been transferred to him on account of commission of a dacoity; (ii) that the accused did receive or retain the same; (iii) that he received or retained the same with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person and (iv) that he knew or had a reason to believe that possession of the property was transferred by commission of dacoity.
“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the property had been transferred to them on account of commission of a dacoity and the accused did receive or retain the same and they received or retained the same with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person and that they knew or had a reason to believe that possession of the property was transferred by commission of dacoity.”, the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the impugned judgment, thereby acquitting the Appellants.
Cause Title: Nazir Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh and connected matters (Neutral Citation:2024:CGHC:35292-DB)
Appearances:
Appellants: Advocates Samrath Singh Marhas, Rishikant Mahobia and Maneesh Sharma.
Respondent: Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur
