S.27 Evidence Act | Only Disclosure Leading To Recovery Of Weapon Admissible, Not Statement Linking Weapon To Crime: Supreme Court
Pranav B Prem
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 7) set aside the conviction of three individuals for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that only the portion of a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that leads to the recovery of a weapon is admissible, while any statement about the weapon being used in the crime is inadmissible as a confession.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal and convicting the accused based on inadmissible statements and doubtful identification evidence. “The statement of the appellants that the weapons recovered were the weapons of crime cannot be read against them in view of Sections 25 and 26 read with Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Only that part of the statement which leads the police to the recovery of the weapons is admissible, and not the part which alleges that the weapons recovered were actually the weapons of crime,” the Court said.
Background
The case arose from the alleged murder of Pushpendra Singh in June 2000 in Udham Singh Nagar district, Uttarakhand. The three appellants — Rajendra Singh, Bhupender Singh, and Ranjeet Singh — were accused of attacking the deceased with swords and a kanta after a dispute over digging a plinth on agricultural land. While the Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding the evidence insufficient, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them under Section 302 IPC, sentencing each to life imprisonment.
Ocular Testimony and Identification Doubts
The Supreme Court examined the testimonies of witnesses, particularly Amarjeet Kaur (PW-7), the lady in whose house the deceased had taken shelter. She stated that three persons entered her house and assaulted the victim with swords but admitted she did not know their names. No identification parade was conducted, and she was never asked to identify the accused. “A careful reading of the testimony of PW-7, as a whole, would indicate that she did not know the names of the accused persons and thus could not disclose their identity,” the Court noted.
The Court further observed contradictions between PW-7’s statement and that of the deceased’s father (PW-1), who claimed to be an eyewitness. While PW-1 stated that he saw the appellants assaulting his son, PW-7’s evidence indicated that the father reached the scene about half an hour after the incident. The Court found the testimony of PW-1 unreliable, noting inconsistencies such as his failure to hand over bloodstained clothes to the police and his improbable presence at the scene, given the location of the incident. The Court also held that PW-2, Jwala Singh, was a chance witness whose statement could not safely establish the identity of the accused. No independent witnesses such as local shopkeepers or labourers were examined to corroborate the version of PW-1 and PW-2.
Section 27 Evidence Act and Recovery of Weapons
The Court emphasized that the recovery of weapons alone, without forensic linkage to the crime, cannot prove guilt. Though the weapons were allegedly recovered based on the appellants’ disclosure, no forensic report was produced to match the blood found on the weapons with that of the deceased. The Bench observed, “The weapons were no doubt recovered allegedly on the pointing out of the appellants. However, no effort was made to match the blood on the said weapons with that of the deceased… to prove that they were actually used in the murder.”
Rejecting the State’s argument that the appellants’ disclosure amounted to an admission of guilt, the Court reaffirmed the limited scope of Section 27. Referring to the Privy Council’s decision in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor (1947) and its recent affirmation in Manjunath v. State of Karnataka (2023), the Court held that “not all information disclosed by a person in police custody is required to be proved as against the accused person; only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact is admissible and can be proved.” It reiterated that information leading to the recovery of an object is admissible, but any statement about the use of that object in committing a crime remains inadmissible.
High Court’s Interference with Acquittal Unjustified
The Bench held that the High Court should not have interfered with the trial court’s acquittal unless the findings were manifestly perverse. Noting that the trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court failed to identify any perversity or error warranting reversal. “It is safer and more appropriate to rely upon the findings of the Trial Court which has seen the demeanor of the witnesses rather than to rely upon the findings of the First Appellate Court,” the Court observed.
Finding that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the appellants or prove that the recovered weapons were used in the crime, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It held that the High Court had “manifestly erred in interfering with the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and reversing the judgment so as to convict the appellants.” Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and they were acquitted by granting them the benefit of doubt. “The conviction of the appellants is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of the alleged offence by granting them the benefit of doubt,” the Court concluded.
Appearance
For Appellant(s): Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Ms. Ms. Saumya Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Bhati, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G. Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
Cause Title: Rajendra Singh And Ors. Versus State Of Uttaranchal Etc.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1193
Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 476-477 Of 2013
Coram: Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
