Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that mere recovery of a weapon at the instance of the accused does not constitute conclusive proof of guilt.

Background of the Case

The case revolved around an appeal by Vinobhai, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Ramakrishnan. According to the prosecution, on December 31, 2010, at approximately 11:45 a.m., the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife, inflicting grievous injuries that led to his death. The prosecution further alleged that the murder was motivated by prior enmity, as the deceased was involved in the murder of the appellant’s elder brother.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant challenged his conviction, highlighting discrepancies and omissions in the statements of key prosecution witnesses, particularly Shaju (PW-4) and Suresh (PW-5). The defense pointed out that:

• There were material omissions regarding the number of stab wounds and the distance from which the witnesses observed the incident.

• The prosecution failed to examine other alleged eyewitnesses.

• The witnesses did not immediately report the incident to the police, raising doubts about their credibility.

• The recovery of the weapon at the appellant’s instance was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State's Counterarguments

The State argued that minor discrepancies in the statements of PW-4 and PW-5 did not undermine their credibility. The prosecution maintained that both witnesses had consistently identified the appellant as the perpetrator and that the recovery of the weapon further corroborated the charges against him.

Supreme Court's Observations

After carefully reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found multiple inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The Court observed that:

• The testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 contained material omissions that amounted to contradictions under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

• The claim that the appellant inflicted two to three stab wounds on the deceased’s back was an omission.

• PW-4’s assertion that he witnessed the crime from fifteen feet away was also omitted in his original statement.

• Both witnesses failed to report the incident to the police or make any attempt to take the deceased to the hospital.

• Other individuals present at the scene were not examined as witnesses, weakening the prosecution’s case.

Significance of Section 27 of the Evidence Act

The Court referred to its earlier decision in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023), reiterating that a disclosure statement alone cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction. The judgment quoted the precedent as follows: “A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”

Final Verdict

In light of the inconsistencies in witness statements and the lack of corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court thus set aside the judgments of the Kerala High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda, acquitting the appellant of all charges. The Court ordered that he be released immediately unless required in connection with any other case.

Cause Title:  Vinobhai versus State of Kerala

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1730 OF 2017

Date: January-29-2025

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

[Read/Download order]