Information U/S. 27 Evidence Act Must Be Proved By Investigating Officer As Being Voluntary & Uninfluenced By Threat, Duress Or Coercion: SC
The Supreme Court reiterated that the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) must be proved by the Investigating Officer as being voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.
The Court reiterated thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Telangana High Court by which it dismissed his Appeal and affirmed the Judgment of the Family Court-cum-VII-Additional Sessions Judge.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The law is well settled by a catena of judgments of this Court that the information under Section 27 IEA which leads to discovery of an incriminating material/evidence must be proved by the Investigating Officer as being voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress or coercion. The Investigating Officer is also required to prove the contents of the information/confessional memo to the extent they relate to the facts discovered.”
The Bench also reiterated that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove each and every link in the chain of incriminating circumstances beyond all manner of doubt and that the circumstances so relied upon by the prosecution should point unequivocally towards the guilt of the accused and should be inconsistent with the guilt of anyone else or the innocence of the accused.
Senior Advocate A. Sirajudeen appeared on behalf of the Appellant/accused while AOR (Standing Counsel) Devina Sehgal appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
As per the prosecution case, the deceased and the wife of the Appellant/accused developed an extra-marital affair with each other. In 2013, they eloped from their village and the Appellant’s wife returned after four days but the deceased failed to turn up. Consequently, the deceased’s mother lodged a missing Complaint at the Police Station. Based on the Complaint, a case was registered. The Appellant along with other accused persons allegedly threatened the family members of the deceased in the Panchayat and under the fear of retribution, they agreed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to him within 10 days. However, the Appellant was unsatisfied with such resolution and thus, he allegedly hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased.
Resultantly, the Appellant and other accused persons abducted the deceased and killed him with a towel. It was further alleged that they crushed his face by a big boulder so as to destroy his identity and his dead body was concealed in a nearby water channel. Thereafter, the Appellant divorced his wife and then an FIR was registered under Sections 384, 364, 302, 201 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Eight accused persons were put up for trial and the Trial Court convicted them. However, other co-accused were acquitted. A common Appeal was preferred and the Division Bench reversed the conviction of two accused but affirmed the same of the Appellant. Being aggrieved, he was before the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “Only in the event of the complete/unbroken chain of circumstances being proved by cogent and clinching evidence which does not admit of any other inference, otherwise that of the guilt of the accused, the conviction can be recorded.”
The Court further noted that, so far as the aspect of recovery of the currency notes is concerned, the Investigating Officer (IO) categorically stated that it was the accused who led them to the place of discovery, but so far as the crime scene is concerned, there is not even a slightest utterance by IO that the accused made the disclosure or led them to the place where the skeletal remains were found.
“The panch witness (PW-9 and PW-19) also did not make a whisper regarding the accused, leading them to the place from where the incriminating articles were recovered. … Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that neither was the disclosure allegedly suffered by the accused before the Investigating Officer (PW-22) under Section 27 IEA proved as per law nor did the prosecution establish that the discovery was made on being pointed out by the accused”, it added.
The Court observed that, since the very factum of the discovery/recovery of incriminating skeletal remains was not proved by proper evidence, the same cannot be linked to the accused Appellant.
“… the DNA profiling report pales into insignificance and cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the accused. … we have no hesitation in holding that none of the incriminating circumstances portrayed by the prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the charges against the accused appellant were established by cogent and clinching evidence, and therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Wadla Bheemaraidu v. State of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 923)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen, AOR Manjeet Chawla, and Advocate Shaik Soni Ahamed.
Respondent: AOR Devina Sehgal and Advocate S. Uday Bhanu.
