Summary
Murder convictions resting on alleged disclosure-led recovery could not stand where the evidence indicated prior police knowledge of the body, unreliable memorandum attestation and failure by the investigating officer to prove the information leading to discovery. Section 27 admits only information distinctly related to the discovered fact, not a general custodial confession. The circumstantial chain remained unproved. All appeals were allowed, convictions set aside and the appellants acquitted with immediate release unless required elsewhere.
Issues
- Whether the alleged disclosures and body recovery satisfied Section 27.
- Whether the prosecution proved a complete circumstantial chain excluding innocence.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Discovery must follow the accused’s custodial information; only the part distinctly related to the discovered fact is admissible. Prior knowledge and deficient proof defeated reliance here. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Sections 302, 34, 120B and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The challenged murder, common-intention, conspiracy and evidence-screening convictions were set aside because the prosecution failed to prove the incriminating circumstances. (¶¶ 2, 3.3, 3.6, 26, 27)
Held
- A circumstantial prosecution must establish the relied-on circumstances fully, make them consistent only with guilt and form a complete chain excluding a reasonable conclusion of innocence. Strong suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Section 27 requires a discovery resulting from information given by an accused in police custody. The admissible portion is confined to information distinctly related to that discovery; the confession or past history of an object does not become admissible in its entirety merely because an object is produced. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The witnesses’ accounts indicated that police and family members already knew of the death and body at Bhatgaon before the recorded disclosures. Contradictory attestation circumstances and a witness’s admission of signing unread papers at police direction undermined the claimed discovery. The possibility of documents being created to implicate the accused could not be excluded. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Nothing in the third accused’s statement led to discovery of an incriminating fact. Independently, the investigating officer merely referred to writing the memoranda without proving what information the accused supplied or how it led to discovery and recovery; that evidence did not establish the Section 27 foundation. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
- The prosecution failed to establish the incriminating circumstances or a complete chain pointing only to guilt. Both lower-court judgments were set aside, all appellants acquitted of all charges and release directed forthwith unless required in another case. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court and trial judgments set aside. All appellants acquitted of all charges and to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Pending applications disposed of.