Kerala HC: Information Given By One Accused Leading To Discovery Can't Be Used To Connect All Accused U/ S.27 Evidence Act

 The records show that the prosecution is heavily relying

upon the recovery effected, based upon the confession given by the

accused to rope him in this case. The evidence of PW4 would go to

show that on 15.03.2011 he had arrested all the three accused and

has questioned them. His evidence in to the effect that on the basis of

Ext.P7(a) confession he has recovered 83 bottles of Indian Made

Foreign Liquor. But it is very pertinent to note that PW4 not deposed

the exact information, he had allegedly received from the accused and which led to the recovery. The information deposed by PW4 do not tally with Ext.P7(a) information which he has allegedly recorded. It is a settled law as held by the Apex Court in the decision in Bodh Raj vs. State of Jammu Kashmir (AIR 2002 SC 3164) that in order to rely upon a recovery effected under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the alleged information received from the accused while in custody, which led to the recovery. The investigating officer must record the information and prove it or if not recorded, prove the exact information he had received from the accused by deposing in the Court. In the instant case, in the absence of the prosecution proving the alleged information received from the accused, I have no doubt in my mind that no value can be attached to the recovery evidence. {Para 8}

9. Another important aspect which comes to fore in this case is the impossibility of the fact that all the three accused together have

given information in the form of Ext.P7(a). It is quite impossible to

believe that all these accused have spoken simultaneously and in one

voice. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in Mohd.

Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. (1983 KHC 413), if evidence otherwise confessional in character is admissible under S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is obligatory upon the investigating officer to state and record who gave the information; when he is dealing with more than one accused, what words were used by him so that a recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person giving the information so as to provide incriminating evidence against the person. In the instant case, the version of PW4 is that when he questioned all the three accused, he received the very same information ie; Ext.P7(a) and the exact information given by each of the accused has neither been recorded nor proved. If so, the information allegedly received from all the accused cannot be used to connect the 2nd accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1438 OF 2017

SELVAN Vs  STATE OF KERALA

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

Citation:  2025:KER:74410.

Dated: 08.10.2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page