Crime Scene Panchnama vs. Demonstration Panchnama: The Game-Changing Ruling That Every Judge and Advocate Must Know

 When a Panchnama Becomes Your Enemy in Court: Understanding the Critical Difference

The evidentiary value of panchnamas in criminal trials has long been a contentious area of law. But Justice M.W. Chandwani’s landmark judgment in Rahul S/o Kisan Jaybhayevs. State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-NAG:7427) has drawn a clear line in the sand—and trial courts that ignore it do so at their peril.

Here’s the bombshell: A demonstration panchnama is essentially police-manufactured evidence that violates Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and is categorically inadmissible. Yet, a crime scene panchnama remains robust evidence capable of securing convictions, even for heinous crimes like murder.

The difference? Everything hinges on what the panchnama records and when it was recorded.

The Tale of Two Panchnamas

Imagine this scenario: Police arrive at a murder scene. They meticulously document the dead body with 29 stab wounds, a knife embedded in the victim’s thigh, blood-stained earth, and weapons scattered around. A panch witness signs off. This is a crime scene panchnama—admissible evidence that helped secure a death sentence in the recent Bombay High Court judgment of Sahebrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2024:BHC-AUG:13434-DB,

Now picture another scenario: Days after arrest, the accused confesses to police. Officers then take him to a location and ask him to “show and demonstrate” how he committed the crime. They prepare a detailed panchnama recording his re-enactment. This is a demonstration panchnama—precisely what Justice Chandwani declared inadmissible, invoking Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Prosecution cases that rely on demonstration panchnamas face demolition. Defence counsel armed with this ruling can effectively neutralize such evidence. And judges who allow such panchnamas into evidence risk reversals on appeal.

What Justice Chandwani Actually Held

Let’s cut through the jargon. In the Rahul Jaybhaye case, the accused faced murder charges. During trial, prosecution sought to rely on multiple demonstration panchnamas—essentially recorded re-enactments where the accused had been taken to various locations to “show” how he committed the crime.

The defence objected. The trial judge initially overruled the objections. But Justice Chandwani intervened with a detailed, precedent-laden judgment that:

1.          Demonstration panchnamas violate Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, which prohibit confessions made to police officers

2.          They don’t fall under the Section 27 exception because no “discovery of a fact” occurs—the entire exercise is merely a recreation

3.          They’re fundamentally different from crime scene panchnamas, which record pre-existing physical facts

4.          Trial courts must reject them, even if they appear to corroborate the prosecution case

The ruling is backed by an exhaustive survey of precedents, starting from the foundational Privy Council decision in Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King-Emperor (1946)—the very precedent that established the framework for Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Section 27 Trap: Why “Discovery” Matters

Here’s where many prosecutors and junior judges get confused.

Section 27 of the Evidence Act allows admissibility of confessions in limited circumstances: - Accused is in police custody - Confession leads to discovery of a fact - Only the information “distinctly relating to the fact discovered” is admissible

Classic example: An accused confesses, “I buried the murder weapon under the old tree in my backyard.” Police dig and recover the weapon. The fact “weapon buried under the old tree” is admissible. The confession itself (“I killed him”) is not.

But here’s the catch: A demonstration panchnama doesn’t discover any new fact. It simply records a re-enactment. Where’s the discovery? Nowhere. The accused is merely recreating what he claims happened, and police are documenting this choreographed performance.

As Pulukuri Kottaya established over 75 years ago, Section 27 requires the discovery of a tangible, physical fact—not a demonstration of how events unfolded.

Crime Scene Panchnama: Still Strong Evidence

While demonstration panchnamas are toxic, crime scene panchnamas remain foundational to criminal prosecutions.

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench recently upheld a conviction and death sentence in Sahebrao Shirphule’s case (2024:BHC-AUG:13434-DB) based substantially on the crime scene panchnama. Here’s what made it admissible:

1.          Drawn at the actual crime scene on April 13, 2015 at village Kamari—not days later in re-enactment

2.          Recorded factual observations:

–            A dead body with 29 injuries

–            A knife embedded in the victim’s thigh at the site

–            Blood-stained earth seized

–            Weapons (axe, sickle, knife, iron rods) found and seized at the spot

3.          Witnessed by a panch (PW-2 Ganesh Rathod) and prepared under Section 100 Cr.P.C.

4.          Corroborated by medical evidence (Dr. Sachin’s post-mortem report confirming homicidal death due to hemorrhagic shock)

5.          Consistent findings: Injuries matched the seized weapons

The Court held: The panchnama under Section 100 Cr.P.C., coupled with corroborative testimony, was sufficient for conviction despite absence of independent witnesses.

Key takeaway: Crime scene panchnamas, when properly recorded and corroborated, are robust evidence. Trial courts can rely on them, mark them as exhibits, and use them to establish crucial facts about the crime scene.

---

The Sections 25 and 26 Framework: Why Police Confessions Are Suspect

To understand why demonstration panchnamas are banned, you need to grasp the philosophy behind Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

Section 25 prohibits admissibility of confessions made to police officers. Period. No exceptions.

Why? The law recognizes a fundamental danger: Police have enormous power over arrested persons. They control the cell, the food, the interrogation environment. Threats (explicit or veiled), torture, deception, false promises—the law presumes these risks are inherent in police custody.

Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act states that a confession made by an accused while in police custody is not admissible in court unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 

The rationale? Public policy demands that confessions be gathered in transparent settings—before Magistrates, with legal representation possible, with safeguards in place.

When an accused is taken to a location and asked to demonstrate or recreate a crime, what’s happening? He’s making a confessional statement to police. The fact that it’s choreographed rather than verbal doesn’t change its nature. The panchnama documenting this re-enactment is simply a written record of a police confession.

Hence: It’s inadmissible.

Section 27: The Exception That’s Not Quite an Exception

Section 27 reads: > “Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information given by a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

This is the prosecution’s lifeline in cases involving confessions leading to discovery. But it’s a narrow lifeline.

What qualifies as a “discovery of a fact”? - Recovery of a weapon from a location the accused identifies - Location of stolen goods - Finding of incriminating documents - Discovery of a body or body parts - Identification of a physical location

What does NOT qualify? - A demonstration of how the crime was committed - A re-enactment at the crime scene - A video or panchnama recording the accused’s account of events - Any exercise that doesn’t involve discovering new physical evidence

The Pulukuri Kottaya precedent was emphatic: Information may lead to discovery of a fact. But confessional information, by itself, cannot be divorced from its confessional character merely by documentary it in a panchnama.

Practical Implications for Trial Courts

If you’re a judge or prosecutor, here’s what Justice Chandwani’s ruling means for your courtroom:

✓ ADMISSIBLE - Crime Scene Panchnama

•             Records conditions at the scene immediately after crime

•             Documented by panch witnesses under Section 100 Cr.P.C.

•             Can be marked as an exhibit

•             Can be relied upon to establish facts about weapons, injuries, scene conditions

•             Admissible even without independent witnesses if corroborated by medical evidence or other substantive evidence

✗ INADMISSIBLE - Demonstration Panchnama

•             Re-enactment by accused after arrest/interrogation

•             Even if it appears to corroborate prosecution narrative

•             Cannot be used as substantive evidence

•             Objections must be sustained during trial

•             Witness testimony about demonstration panchnama must be excluded

✓ CONDITIONALLY ADMISSIBLE - Memorandum Panchnama Under Section 27

•             Records that accused’s statement led to discovery of physical fact

•             Only the portion relating to discovery is admissible

•             Confessional portions remain inadmissible

•             Requires detailed examination of what exactly was discovered and how

The Bombay High Court Judgment (Aurangabad Bench): A Model Verdict

The judgment upholding the conviction in Sahebrao Shirphule’s case provides a masterclass in how courts should handle panchnamas.

The Facts: - Accused Sahebrao and his sons (Prashant and Pradip) were convicted of murder - Victim: Yogesh, found with 29 injuries - Crime scene panchnama meticulously documented the body, knife, blood-stained earth, and weapons

The Court’s Reasoning: 1. Panchnama is admissible under Section 100 Cr.P.C. as it’s a document of public officers 2. It records observable facts at the scene—wounds, weapons, scene conditions 3. Medical evidence corroborated the panchnama—Dr. Sachin’s post-mortem confirmed injuries consistent with seized weapons 4. Absence of independent witnesses is not fatal if evidence is otherwise credible 5. Injuries caused by sharp weapons matched the seized articles—establishing the nexus between crime and weapon

The Outcome: Death sentence upheld.

The Lesson: Properly prepared crime scene panchnamas, corroborated by medical or forensic evidence, are powerful tools for securing convictions, even without eyewitnesses.

When Does Panchnama Become “Identification”?

“a crime-scene panchnama is not, by itself, a mark of identification and does not automatically fall within Section 27 or Section 8.”

Correct. Here’s why:

A panchnama is evidence of the facts it records, not evidence of identification. It can be marked as an exhibit (Exh.1, Exh.2, etc.), but this marking is administrative—it’s simply a label for the document.

Under Sections 25 and 26: - Panchnama is not a “document of identification” in the sense of Sections 8-14 of the Evidence Act - It’s substantive evidence of the facts recorded - Therefore, you mark it simply as “Exh.” for reference, not as specific identification evidence

Under Section 27: - Panchnama becomes relevant only if it documents discovery consequent to confession - Even then, only the discovery-related portion is admissible

Under Section 8: - Section 8 deals with facts relevant to show things/persons previously done/used - Panchnama doesn’t typically fall here unless it’s specifically documenting prior use of objects

The Survey of Precedents: From Privy Council to Modern Times

Justice Chandwani’s judgment is particularly valuable because it surveys 75 years of jurisprudence on this issue:

1. Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King-Emperor (1946) - Privy Council

Foundation stone: Section 27 is a narrow exception to Sections 25 and 26. Only facts “distinctly relating to discovery” are admissible, not the confession itself.

2. Modern Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Recent decisions (2024-2025) have reinforced: - Sections 25 and 26 are protective provisions based on public policy - Their scope cannot be circumvented through creative labeling (panchnama, memorandum, etc.) - Trial courts have a duty to reject inadmissible confessions

3. High Court Precedents

Multiple High Court judgments have held: - Demonstration panchnamas are inherently confessional - Recovery panchnamas are admissible only to the extent they document discovery - Crime scene panchnamas remain robust evidence

Red Flags for Defence Counsel

If you’re defending an accused, watch for these red flags during prosecution:

1.          Timing: Is the panchnama created days after the alleged crime? That suggests demonstration, not crime scene.

2.          Location: Was it prepared at the scene immediately after crime, or was the accused taken there later?

3.          Witnesses: Are the panches police-selected or truly independent?

4.          Language: Does the panchnama record observations, or does it narrate the accused’s account?

5.          Corroboration: Is medical/forensic evidence available to corroborate the panchnama?

If the prosecution cannot address these points satisfactorily, the panchnama may be vulnerable to exclusion.

Red Flags for Prosecutors and Judges

Conversely, if you’re prosecuting or adjudicating, be alert to these issues:

1.          Weak corroboration: A panchnama standing alone, unsupported by medical or forensic evidence, is vulnerable

2.          Demonstration element: If panchnama records re-enactment rather than scene conditions, it’s hit by Sections 25-26

3.          Panch credibility: If panches are biased or unreliable, the entire panchnama’s credibility suffers

4.          Procedural compliance: Section 100 Cr.P.C. prescribes strict procedure for panchnama preparation

5.          Missing details: Vague panchnamas without specific observations are easier to challenge

The Bottom Line: Admissibility Framework

Here’s your quick reference guide:

Aspect	Crime Scene Panchnama	Demonstration Panchnama
Timing	Immediately after crime	Days/weeks later after arrest
What it records	Observable facts at scene	Accused’s re-enactment
Admissibility	✓ Admissible as substantive evidence	✗ Inadmissible under Ss. 25-26
Section 27 applicability	Not typically	No—no new “fact” discovered
Corroboration required	Advisable but not mandatory	Irrelevant—inadmissible anyway
Expert examination	Can be corroborated by medical/forensic evidence	Cannot salvage the evidence
Defence strategy	Challenge corroboration; question panches	Object during trial; cite Rahul Jaybhaye
Evidentiary power	Strong (has secured death sentences)	None (confessional in nature)

Conclusion: The Game Has Changed

Justice Chandwani’s judgment is a watershed moment in criminal evidence law.

For prosecutors, it’s a wake-up call: Stop relying on demonstration panchnamas as a shortcut. Build your case on crime scene panchnamas corroborated by credible evidence.

For defence counsel, it’s a powerful weapon: Demonstration panchnamas are now presumptively inadmissible. Challenge them vigorously.

For judges, it’s a clear directive: Distinguish meticulously between crime scene and demonstration panchnamas. Don’t allow police-manufactured re-enactments into evidence under any guise.

The ruling vindicates the protective philosophy of Sections 25 and 26—that confessions obtained in police custody are inherently suspect. A panchnama is merely one form such confessions take. Documenting a re-enactment on paper doesn’t make a confession admissible.

But crime scene panchnamas, rooted in observable facts recorded immediately, remain powerful evidence capable of securing even capital punishment.

The distinction is clear. The law is settled. The era of unchallenged demonstration panchnamas is over.

Print Page