Whether prosecution must prove that nobody had knowledge about the existence of dead body before information given by accused for proof of discovery statement U/S 27 of Evidence Act?

As such, for bringing the case under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act, it will be necessary for the prosecution to

establish that, based on the information given by the accused

while in police custody, it had led to the discovery of the fact,

which was distinctly within the knowledge of the maker of the

said statement. It is only so much of the information as

relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered would be

admissible. It has been held that the rationale behind this

provision is that, if a fact is actually discovered in consequence

of the information supplied, it affords some guarantee that the

information is true and it can therefore be safely allowed to be

admitted in evidence as an incriminating factor against the

accused. {Para 13}

14. We will have to therefore examine as to whether the

prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the

recovery of the dead body was on the basis of the information

given by the accused persons in the statement recorded under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution will have to

establish that, before the information given by the accused

persons on the basis of which the dead body was recovered,

nobody had the knowledge about the existence of the dead

body at the place from where it was recovered.

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

Whether court should convict accused on basis of recovery evidence if link between fact discovered with crime is not proved?

The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
evidence of recovery. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it
is not the discovery of every fact that is admissible but the discovery of
relevant fact is alone admissible. Relevancy is nothing but the
connection or the link between the facts discovered with the crime.
The recovery of the motorcycle is sought to be relied upon as a
circumstance against the appellants. There is nothing on record to
show that the motorcycle recovered at the instance of appellant No.1, belongs to him. PW-13, IO, in his cross-examination admits that he
does not know whether the appellant No.1 is the owner of the
motorcycle. He further admits that no attempts were made by him to
enquire about the owner of the vehicle.
30. Testimony of PWs 4 and 5 is also unreliable since it contradicts
that of PW-10. As per PW-10, herself and Anita had seen the bodies of
the deceased at 3 a.m. She did not see the assailants and does not
mention anything about the motorcycle. Hence, there is no occasion
for the assailants of the deceased to remain in the house and hence
the motorcycle would not be outside the house of the deceased at 4
p.m. PWs 4 and 5 contradict each other. While PW-4 states that the
motorcycle was of Bajaj Company, PW-5 mentions it as a motorcycle
from Hero Honda Company. PW-5 in his examination-in-chief says
that he had moved the motorcycle to allow the tractor to pass.
However, in his cross-examination, he says that he did not move the
motorcycle and it was PW-4, who moved it. PW-5 does not even state
the day or month when he saw the motorcycle.
31. PW-2 was the witness to the seizure of the motorcycle. According
to him, the motorcycle was red in colour. However, as per the seizure
memo, the recovered motorcycle was black in colour. This makes the
recovery of the motorcycle unreliable.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 428-430 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.5530-5532 of 2015)

DIGAMBER VAISHNAV Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
Dated:March 5, 2019.

Print Page