LI Network
Published on: November 08, 2023 at 11:54 IST
The Supreme Court of India has underlined the limitations of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that incriminating evidence found in public places accessible to all cannot be solely relied upon to establish the guilt of accused individuals.
The Court’s decision highlights the necessity for the information leading to the discovery of evidence to come directly from a person in custody to be admissible under Section 27.
The ruling in the case of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, which referred to Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B 2023 and Jaikam Khan v. State of UP, emphasized that recoveries made in places accessible to the general public should not serve as the primary basis for establishing guilt.
The Court’s bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol, heard an appeal against a judgment by the Karnataka High Court that had convicted six appellants for offenses under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced them to four years of rigorous imprisonment while upholding the acquittal of the rest.
The Court delved into the conditions necessary for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, referencing the Privy Council’s decision in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor and its affirmation in Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra.
These conditions include the requirement that the discovery of a fact must result from information received from a person accused of an offense, the discovery must be deposed, and the accused must be in police custody when providing the information.
The Court emphasized that only information distinctly related to the discovered fact is admissible under Section 27.
The linchpin of the provision, as described by the Court, is the phrase “distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered.” This pertains to the part of the information provided by the accused that directly and immediately leads to the discovery.
While the Court found that all three necessary conditions were prima facie satisfied in the case, it supported the trial court’s approach to discard the evidence, as the recoveries were made in public places or areas where other individuals also resided.
The Court concluded by stating that commonplace objects, such as sticks or weapons, found in public-access places cannot be the sole basis for accusing individuals of guilt.
As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction awarded by the High Court for the appellants in this case.
This judgment serves as a significant precedent regarding the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act when evidence is discovered in open and accessible locations.