Evidence Act | Incriminating Material Handed Over By Accused During Police Check Not Section 27 “Discovery”: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran partly allowed an appeal by one accused, affirming his conviction for gang rape and sustaining the murder conviction while reducing the sentence to 25 years’ imprisonment without remission. The prosecution alleged that the victim was followed, raped and killed by cutting her throat. The Court set aside his convictions under the SC/ST law and for theft and held that recovery of articles from an accused’s custody is not a Section 27 discovery unless the object was previously concealed and is found because of information supplied. It also directed that legal aid be facilitated for the two other co-convicts to approach the Court.
The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 24 November 2019, when the deceased, who earned a livelihood by selling utensils, was dropped near a village to carry on her work and later went missing. A complaint was lodged after attempts to contact her failed, and her body was discovered the following day in bushes along a roadside. An inquest was conducted and criminal law was set in motion. The police altered the provisions of law to include offences of gang rape and murder under the Indian Penal Code, along with offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The trial court convicted three accused for gang rape and murder, awarding death sentence for murder and life imprisonment for rape, along with additional sentences under the SC/ST Act and for theft-related offences against two accused. The High Court confirmed the convictions but modified the death sentence to life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life without remission. One accused approached the Supreme Court limited to the question of sentence, though the Court also examined the correctness of certain convictions.
The Court recorded that, although notice in the special leave petition was limited to the question of sentence, it had examined the judgment to satisfy itself regarding the conviction. It observed that it had “very serious reservation about the conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act” and clarified that confirmation of the conviction for rape and murder should not be understood as approval of the reasoning adopted by the High Court on all aspects.
While dealing with the circumstantial evidence, the Court noted that the High Court relied on the ‘last seen together’ theory. It observed that “there is no acquaintance proved between the accused and the deceased and there cannot be any ‘last seen together theory’ propounded as a circumstance in the above case,” though it accepted that “the accused and the deceased were found in the same vicinity just prior to the time of the crime.”
On the alleged confession, the Court stated that “there can be no reliance placed on such a confession at the behest of the police,” particularly as it was made while the accused were in police custody. Addressing recoveries claimed under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court observed that “there was no concealment as such” and that “the attempt to convert it as a recovery under Section 27 cannot at all [be] accepted,” as it went against the settled principle that disclosure must relate to concealment and recovery in the presence of witnesses.
Despite rejecting these circumstances, the Court accepted other evidence forming a complete chain. It recorded that the accused were present in the vicinity of the deceased prior to the offence, that witnesses spoke of bloodstains on their clothes, and that medical evidence conclusively established rape and homicidal death. The Court noted that the DNA analysis showed that “the seminal stains on the saree of the victim matched with the DNA profiles of A1 and A2 and they are of the same biological origin.” It concluded that these circumstances “would provide a complete chain of circumstances to convict the accused under Sections 302 & 376D read with Section 34 of the IPC.”
With respect to the SC/ST Act, the Court observed that “there is nothing to indicate that the accused knew the caste of the victim or even that they were in any manner acquainted with the victim,” and held that “the offence hence cannot be said to have been committed with the knowledge of the caste status of the victim,” which was an essential ingredient of the charged offences.
The Court ordered that “the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC is thus modified” and that the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life imposed by the High Court be replaced with “one extending to 25 years without remission.”
“The conviction under Section 376D read with Section 34 of the IPC is affirmed, which sentences shall be concurrently suffered. The appeal stands partly allowed,” and ordered that “pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
“The Registry of this Court [shall] forward a copy of this Judgment to the Member Secretary, Telangana Legal Services Authority,” so that legal assistance may be provided to the remaining convicted accused for filing appeals through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, if so advised.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.
Case Title: Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1449
Case Number: Crl. A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 6850 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
