Supreme Court explains pre-requisite for proving recovery panchnama as per S 27 of Evidence Act

 77. The first and the basic infirmity in the evidence of all the aforesaid prosecution witnesses is that none of them have deposed the exact statement said to have been made by the Appellant herein which ultimately led to the discovery of a fact relevant Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

78. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the Appellant-Accused while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes, etc. then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the Accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence, etc. When the Accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the Accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the Accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other Article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the Accused and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the Accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or bloodstained clothes or any other Article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter.

21.A cautious appraisal of the above extract from the evidence of the Investigating Officer(PW-27) would reveal that he did not depose the exact words as narrated by the Accused Thammaraya(A-2) and Accused Basappa(A-3) in their disclosure statements. In fact, he even did not care to exhibit the disclosure statements of which he was the scribe in his deposition. He also did not depose in clear words that the Accused persons had led him to the place mentioned in the disclosure statements and got the articles recovered. No connection between the Accused and the particular articles recovered is visible from the testimony of the Investigating Officer(PW-27). The Investigating Officer(PW-27) also failed to exhibit the recovery memorandums. There is no indication in the deposition of the Investigating Officer(PW-27) that he sealed the recovery articles or got the same subjected to test identification at the hands of the relatives of the deceased Shrishail. 

4. Therefore, this material omission on part of the Investigating Officer(PW-27) in not conducting a Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the recovered articles, more particularly when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of these articles, has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story, which are impossible to mend.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2013 

Decided On: 22.01.2025

Thammaraya and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, , Sanjay Karol,  and Sandeep Mehta, , JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0110/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Omission To Conduct TIP Of Recovered Articles Material When Case Is Based Solely On Recoveries: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict

Furthermore, another very crucial missing link in the prosecution case that it failed to conduct the Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the recovered articles, thereby, bringing the identification of the material objects in Court for the first time, is under a cloud of doubt. It is a case of sheer negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the Investigating Agency and the Public Prosecutor for not conducting Test Identification Parade(TIP). This Court shed light on the purpose of Test Identification Parade(TIP) in Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay MANU/SC/0044/1954 : (1954) 2 SCC 516, wherein it held as follows:

20. ... These parades are held by the police in the course of their investigation for the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify the properties which are the subject-matter of the offence or to identify the persons who are concerned in the offence. ...the identifying witnesses are explained the purpose of holding these parades and are asked to identify the properties which are the subject-matter of the offence or the persons who are concerned in the offence. {Para 22}

(emphasis supplied)

23. This Court has further noted the significance of Test Identification Parade(TIP) in Munna Kumar Upadhyay alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh   MANU/SC/0524/2012 : (2012) 6 SCC 174, wherein it was held:

66. There was some delay in holding the identification parade. But the delay per se cannot be fatal to the validity of holding an identification parade, in all cases, without exception. The purpose of the identification parade is to provide corroborative evidence and is more confirmatory in its nature. ...........

(emphasis supplied)

24. Therefore, this material omission on part of the Investigating Officer(PW-27) in not conducting a Test Identification Parade(TIP) of the recovered articles, more particularly when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of these articles, has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story, which are impossible to mend.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 2013 

Decided On: 22.01.2025

Thammaraya and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, , Sanjay Karol,  and Sandeep Mehta, , JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0110/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can rely on recovery of object from open space if object recovered was not concealed?

 Now we come to the recoveries made allegedly with the aid of the accused. The dead body was found in a field, an open space with free access to anybody. The stone and glass piece are said to have been recovered from the place of occurrence itself, albeit with the aid of the accused. We have serious doubts about the recoveries having the status of a recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but for the time being we would assume it to be so. A stone, weighing 1-1.5 kg and a glass piece were said to have been recovered, on the showing of the accused, specifically A1 and A2. The seizure list as seen from the records does not indicate the specific place from which it was recovered other than stating that it is ‘from the PO at the paddy land of Jogesh Roy’. The learned State Counsel would argue that though the paddy field had free access, it was thick with stalks and there could definitely be a concealment; the growth not borne out from the evidence. We do not for a moment doubt that there could be concealment even in a public place or in a field with thick vegetation, but there is no statement recorded from the accused as to such a concealment having been effected and then the police having been led to the location and the material object recovered from the place of concealment. Recital in the seizure list is only that ‘on being shown and certified by accused 1 and 2’. Concealment and its knowledge, revealed from the statement of the accused, is the crucial ingredient of Section 27 which can lead to that being used in a criminal trial, any other confession to a police officer being excluded as self-incriminating. {Para 12}

13. Further, the said recoveries are/ made on 02.11.2012 and

the same was witnessed by PW5, the Pradhan who had come to

the place of occurrence at the time of the recovery of body, on

31.10.2012 and at the time of recovery, on 02.11.2012. In fact, the

testimony of PW5 is that the signature on the inquest report and

the seizure report are his and it relates to one broken spectacles,

one stone, one gangee and four pairs of sandals and one single

sandal. It is not clear from the testimony of PW5 as to which were

seized by the police on 31.10.2012 and what was recovered on

02.11.2012. The recovery thus has no clarity and more

importantly the accused pointing out the concealed objects or

even their presence at the time was not deposed to by PW5.

14. The recovery on 02.11.2012, as evidenced from the seizure

report, was with respect to four items; the stone, a broken glass

and two spectacles, one of which was broken, not testified to by

PW5. The other objects were seized at the time of inquest from

the place of occurrence from where the body was recovered.

Yet again as we already observed there is no statement taken of

the accused of a concealment and the recoveries made do not

qualify to be one under Section 27. The stains on the stone found

at the place of occurrence and the serology report of it being

human blood, hence, is of no consequence.

15. We also have to observe that the seizure is said to have

been made in the presence of both the accused without

indicating as to who out of the two revealed the concealment. As

a matter of fact, PW16, the Investigating Officer, testifies that

both the accused A1 and A2 informed him that if they are taken to

the place of occurrence they would recover the stone and

broken glass with which the deceased was murdered and also

the motorcycle of Samir; the last of which we will deal with a little

later. Here we have to emphasize that PW5, the witness to the

recovery, categorically stated that neither the stone nor the glass

piece was produced in Court and hence not confronted to the

witness. More pertinently the alleged weapons of assault were

not shown to the Doctor to elicit his opinion as to whether the

said objects could have caused the injuries found on the dead

body. The recoveries are of no avail and do not form a clinching

incriminating circumstance against the accused.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 2507 of 2026

Papan Sarkar @ Pranab Vs  State of West Bengal

Author: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 528

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Extra Judicial confession of Accused Absolving Himself & Incriminating Co-Accused Not Reliable

 PW3 on the other hand speaks not of a confession but an exculpatory statement made by A1 that it was A2 and A3 who killed the deceased. PW12 and PW14, two other witnesses who spoke of the extra-judicial confession also spoke in tandem with what PW3 stated. The exculpatory statement made absolving himself and accusing the co-accused, by its very nature is unreliable. It cannot be put against the other accused, for no cross examination being provided to them, of the one who made that statement. It cannot also incriminate the person who made the statement since there is no element of confession in the recital as spoken of by three witnesses, as against one.

11. It is also of relevant import that PW8 specifically spoke of a

mob having detained A1 and A2 and PW8 having taken A1 aside

to speak to him, when he made the confession in the presence of

PW3; thus again raising a suspicion of whether PW12 and PW14

were privy to the statement made by A1. The extra-judicial

confession by its very nature being a weak piece of evidence has

not at all been proved in the present case. In any event, the

statement is made when the two accused were detained by a

mob, on the accusation of murder. Obviously, there is

considerable pressure put on the detained persons, who could

have spoken, on undue duress or under threat of violence. In

fact, the records indicate that after arrest, when A1&2 were taken for medical examination, they had injuries on their body, which again cuts at the root of credibility of the statement made; which anyway has doubtful standing as a confession.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 2507 of 2026

Papan Sarkar @ Pranab Vs  State of West Bengal

Author: K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 528

Dated: MAY 22, 2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Disclosure by One Accused U/S 27 of Evidence Act Can extend to the discovery of identity and involvement of Co- accused and recovery from that co-accused,

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act carves out a well-known exception to the general rule that confessions made to police are inadmissible. The Supreme Court in Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1043, explained that when information supplied by an accused leads to the discovery of a new fact previously unknown to the police, that part of the statement becomes admissible in evidence. Significantly, the Court held that such discovery may also include the involvement and arrest of a co-accused.

Print Page

Discovery, Not Confession: What is the real Scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act?

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—now reflected in Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023—is a narrow but powerful exception to the rule that confessions made to police officers or in police custody are generally inadmissible. The provision does not make the whole disclosure statement admissible; it permits proof only of that limited portion of the accused’s information which distinctly relates to a fact actually discovered in consequence of it.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court can rely on recovery of articles of Victim as per statement of accused U/S 27 of Evidence Act if relatives of victim have not testified that those articles were belonging to Victim?

 In the preceding paragraph, we have considered the law laid down by this Court on that issue. Let us now consider the circumstances in which the recovery was made from the locations as disclosed. It cannot be questioned that such recovery would be relevant since the Appellant-convict could have affected the recovery only if he had specific knowledge of the location. This, however, in our view, is not sufficient to take the recovery of the objects as a circumstance against the Appellant convict. This we say for the reason that the objects recovered also have to be verified and tested. Now, this was not done. His statement is said to have led to the recovery of - (i) a sickle, (ii) a jute bag, (iii) a green coloured lungi, (iv) a blue colour checked shirt, and (v) a red and yellow colour striped towel from his house. {Para 26} 

27. How any and/or all of these articles related to the alleged murder of two victims and rape of one of them is undemonstrated from the record. None of the relatives of either D1 or D2 have testified to any of these belongings being that of the victims.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines Regarding procedure to be followed regarding DNA evidence from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the Accused,

 This lack of a common procedure to be followed, is concerning. As such, we issue the following directions which shall be followed henceforth, in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved:

1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. Here only we may clarify that the absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.

2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48- hours from the time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.

3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.

4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the Accused, a Chain of Custody Register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse.

The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required. {Para 44}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court : A disclosure statement U/S 27 of Evidence Act is inadmissible where the place of recovery of the dead body were already known to the police and panch witnesses before the accused’s statement was recorded.

 A perusal of the evidence of Narendra Kumar (PW-2) read

with that of Ramkumar (PW-5) would clearly reveal that the

police as well as these witnesses knew about the death of

Dharmendra Satnami occurring and the dead body being

found at Bhatgaon prior to the statements of the accused

persons being recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

All the statements are recorded after 10:00 am whereas

Ramkumar (PW-2) stated that at around 08:00 am, police

informed him about the accused persons killing the deceased

and thereafter they going to Bhatgaon. Ramkumar (PW-5) also

admitted that he arrived at village Kunda and on his arrival,

he was informed by his brother-in-law and nephew about the

murder which was done by the accused persons. {Para 21}

22. We therefore find that the prosecution has utterly failed

to prove that the discovery of the dead body of the deceased

from the pond at Bhatgaon was only on the basis of the

disclosure statement made by the accused persons under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act and that nobody knew about

the same before that. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3869 OF 2023

RAVISHANKAR TANDON Vs  STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 299.

Print Page

Guard’s Word, Open‑Place Recoveries and CCTV: Judicial Lessons in Criminal Evidence”

 

A case‑study in circumstantial evidence, Section 27, electronic proof and single‑witness testimony

A recent jail‑escape prosecution from India offers a compact tutorial on almost every hard question in criminal evidence: how far a court can go on the word of a solitary witness; what to do with “demonstration panchnamas”; how to treat recoveries from open places; what Section 65B demands from CCTV evidence; and how to apply the Sharad Sarda “panchsheel” to a conspiracy theory built almost entirely on circumstantial proof.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Recovery Of A Weapon From An Open Place Accessible To All Not Reliable U/ S of 27 Evidence Act

27.1. This Court has, in various judgments, clarified this position. Illustratively, in Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/1259/2021 : (2021) 13 SCC 716 it was observed:

One of the alleged recoveries is from the room where deceased Asgari used to sleep. The other two recoveries are from open field, just behind the house of deceased Shaukeen Khan i.e. the place of incident. It could thus be seen that the recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could be placed on such recoveries.

(Emphasis supplied)

 27.2. Also, in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. MANU/SC/0211/2023 : (2023) 6 SCC 605 the Court held:

20. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement of the Accused as required Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law. However, this circumstance which, in our view, could not have been used, has been employed by the High Court to seek corroboration to the extra- judicial confession.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2011

Decided On: 06.11.2023

Manjunath and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1212/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Disclosure Statements Made U/S 27 Evidence Act outside Police Custody Not Admissible

 Now we come to the recovery allegedly made Under Section 27, which is also fraught with inconsistencies as we would presently indicate. The memorandum Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act produced as Ex. P4 indicates the same having been drawn up on 13.10.2018 at 10.30 A.M. The only admissible portion in the said memorandum is: 'I will show you the place... where her bones and ashes are and the place where her skull and bones were..'(sic). The police were led by the Accused first to a field from where bones with ashes were recovered at 10.55 A.M evidenced by Property Seizure Memo Ex.P5. The canal was searched by three fishermen PW 3 to PW 5 who recovered the skull with 8 numbers of tooth of the upper jaw and a piece of bone wrapped in a green color saree, all of which showed evidence of burning as indicated in Ex.P3 Property Seizure Memo at 13.00 on 13.10.2018. Though the recoveries as per Exts. P3 & P5 Memos were made, in accordance with the confession statement of the Accused, Ext. P4 at 10.30 on 13.10.2018, the Arrest/Court Surrender Memo produced at Ex.P27, indicates the arrest of the Accused having been made on 13.10.2018 at 22.00 hrs. Section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly speaks of information received from a person Accused of any offence while in the custody of the police leading to a discovery of a fact being enabled of proof in the trial. The Accused at the time of the statement was not in the custody of the police and hence it is removed from the ambit of Section 27. {Para 10}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rohit Jangde Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0159/2026.

Print Page

The Jailbreak File: A Sessions Judge’s Guide to Panchanamas, Section 27 Recoveries, and CCTV Proof (IPC 224–225)

 The record is familiar: a prison, a sudden burst of violence, a weapon that appears “from nowhere”, and a case diary full of panchanamas. The danger for a trial judge is also familiar—either to treat the paperwork as conclusive, or to reject the entire prosecution story because the panch witnesses are “official”. The correct judicial method lies in disciplined separation: (i) admissibility vs. weight, (ii) narrative vs. discovery, and (iii) primary proof vs. corroboration. Print Page

Supreme Court: Disclosure Statements U/S. 27 Evidence Act Alone is Not Enough For Conviction Unless Chain Of Evidence Is Complete

(viii) The prosecution case mainly rested upon the deposition given by PW-5 so-called eye-witness as well as on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The alleged motive, last seen theory, recovery, and conduct of the Accused were sought to be relied upon to establish the chain of circumstances.

(ix) Upon an exhaustive appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, by judgment dated 30.03.2019, acquitted all the Accused of all charges. The Trial Court recorded findings that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the Accused. The alleged motive was held to be weak and speculative; the theory of conspiracy was found to be unsubstantiated; and crucial links such as last seen together and recovery were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

23. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have mainly placed reliance upon confessional statements of the Accused and, thereafter, the discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the canal. We are of the view that simply relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the Accused, and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case the sole so-called eyewitness, PW-5, cannot be said to be reliable and the other circumstances upon which the prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that the Accused have committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the Accused had committed the alleged offences. We are of the further view that the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view based upon the evidence led by the prosecution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 and 2542-2543 of 2024

Decided On: 16.01.2026

Tulasareddi and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Pancholi and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: V.M. Pancholi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0072/2026.

Print Page

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

Kerala HC: Accused can not be convicted only on the basis of disclosure and recovery evidence U/S 27 of Evidence Act

 Be that as it may, it is further to be seen that the conviction of the accused is solely based upon the recovery evidence alone and nothing more. It is a settled law as held by the Honourable Apex Court in Manoj Kumar Soni v State of MP [2023 SCC OnLine SC 984] that a disclosure statement is not so strong a piece of evidence which is sufficient on its own and without anything more, to bring home the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, in the decision in Varkey C.V. v State of Kerala[2024 KHC 7096], this Court has categorically held that mere recovery of the weapon of offence on the basis of the information received from the accused, is of no use if there is no other evidence which could betaken as a connecting link about the use of the said weapon for the commission of the crime. That apart, recently in the decision in Abdul Jabbar v State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 901], this Court has again held that while recovery under Section 27 can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction since, it is not a substantive evidence and needs to be corroborated by other evidence. If so, in the light of the afore discussions, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner/2nd accused cannot be sustained. {Para 10}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRL.REV.PET NO. 1438 OF 2017

SELVAN Vs  STATE OF KERALA

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

Citation:  2025:KER:74410.

Dated: 08.10.2025.

Print Page

What is Section 27 of the Evidence Act?

 Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates an exception to the general rule that prohibits confessions made by an accused person to police officers while in custody. This section allows for the admissibility of information received from an accused person in police custody if it leads to the discovery of a fact related to the crime.

Text of Section 27

The section reads: "Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from 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 relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved".

Print Page

Can Partial Circumstantial Evidence Sustain a Criminal Conviction? A Legal Analysis

  The court concludes that last seen theory, extrajudicial confession is not proved. Recovery of weapon under section 27 proved and court comes to conclusion that the answer given under 313 CPC is false. Whether accused can be held guilty?

An examination of conviction possibilities when key circumstantial evidence fails to meet judicial standards

Introduction

Print Page

Narco-Analysis Tests in Indian Criminal Law: Constitutional Safeguards and Evidentiary Value

 Constitutional Framework and Legal Provisions

Narco-analysis tests in India are governed primarily by constitutional protections under Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. These rights are considered "non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions".

The Supreme Court has established that involuntary administration of narco-analysis violates the protection given by Article 20(3), and such tests cannot be conducted without the accused's free and informed consent. The Court emphasized that "under no circumstances is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law".

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is evidentiary value of voluntary Narco- analysis test of accused?

 264. In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.”

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAN

(Before Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.)

Amlesh Kumar  Vs  State of Bihar 

Criminal Appeal No.____ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5392 of 2024)

Decided on June 9, 2025

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1326,2025 INSC 810.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page