Keywords: Accused, consequence, Evidence Act, conviction, Evidence, rigorous
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that incriminatory objects discovered in places accessible to the public cannot be solely relied upon to establish the guilt of accused persons. In a recent judgment, the Court emphasized that for evidence to be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the discovery of the fact must be a direct consequence of information received from a person in custody.
The Court’s decision was based on the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2023 SC 171), which held that “the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all.” The Court found that the approach adopted by the trial court in this case was in accordance with the law. It also referred to the case of Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 13 SCC 716, which similarly emphasized that recoveries made from places accessible to the public cannot be relied upon.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The High Court had reversed the acquittal granted by the trial court and convicted six appellants for offenses under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment, while the acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.
The Court began by discussing the conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, drawing on the Privy Council’s decision in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, and its subsequent affirmation in Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra. According to these conditions:
The discovery of a fact must be a consequence of information from a person accused of an offense.
The discovery of such a fact must be deposed.
The accused must be in police custody at the time of receiving the information.
The Court stressed that only “so much of the information” as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
In its final observation, the Court noted that objects like sticks, whether bamboo or otherwise, are commonplace in village life. Therefore, such objects, discovered in places of public access, cannot be used to establish the guilt of the accused persons. The Court ultimately set aside the conviction awarded by the High Court to the appellants.
This landmark judgment from the Supreme Court serves as a crucial reminder that the law requires a strict adherence to the principles governing the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Evidence obtained from open, accessible places should not be the sole basis for convicting accused individuals, and such evidence must be directly tied to information provided by persons in custody.
Written by : shalmali ugare., College: DES Navalmal Firodia Law college, Pune., Sem : 3rd Intern under Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments