S. 27 Evidence Act | Discovery Of Facts Concerning Co-Accused Would Be Admissible To Establish Charge Of Conspiracy: Chhattisgarh HC

In a recent judgement, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused's connection to the crime, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the convictions of several individuals involved in a murder case which was centred around a conspiracy linked to an extramarital affair.In its judgement, the Court emphasised the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in such cases and the critical role of corroborating evidence in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence.The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal remarked, “The prosecution is required to prove every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to complete the chain of circumstance to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is for the prosecution to establish that all the links in the chain of circumstances are complete, leading inescapably to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, leaving out any possibility of innocence, which the prosecution has proved in the present case.”“...the discovery of facts under Section 27 information regarding other accused persons, to establish charge of conspiracy, in furtherance of common intention would be admissible,” the court observed while relying on the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Mehboob Ali & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640.Notably, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 which deals with 'How much of information received from accused may be proved,' says that, “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.”This above ruling was delivered in response to a batch of six criminal appeals challenging the judgement from the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, in a Sessions Trial.According to the factual matrix of the case, the complainant, Supet, reported that on the previous day, his nephew, Durgesh Panika, had visited his house and requested to borrow his motorcycle to visit his in-laws in Jhagrakhand. Durgesh took the motorcycle and left his own motorcycle at Supet's house. It was unclear whether Durgesh actually went to his in-laws' village. On August 16, 2020, at around 7 a.m., Supet's nephew, Ajesh Kumar, called to inform him that his motorcycle was found abandoned on the main road near Gulab Raj's motor pump in Harratola, with a dead body lying nearby. Upon reaching the location, Supet confirmed that the motorcycle was his, and the deceased was indeed his nephew, Durgesh Panika, who had a deep wound on the back of his head. The circumstances suggested that Durgesh had been murdered by an unknown assailant using a deadly weapon.The prosecution alleged that the murder was the result of a conspiracy involving Durgesh's wife, Kamta Panika, and her lover, Tirath Lal Kashipuri, among others. The motive was reportedly connected to Kamta's extramarital affair with Tirath, which had caused tensions in her marriage with Durgesh.The main legal question in this case centred on determining whether Durgesh Panika's death was a result of homicide and whether the accused were guilty of murder based on circumstantial evidence. The trial court found the appellants guilty under Sections 302/34, 201/34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to life imprisonment.The Court, in its Order, emphasised the “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence established by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, underscoring that the case lacked direct evidence and was instead based on circumstantial evidence.The Court meticulously examined the Call Detail Records (CDR) and call detail records presented in the case. It observed that, “the fact is established beyond doubt that deceased Durgesh was aware about illicit relationship between accused Kamta and accused Tirath, and due to Kamta secretly talking to Tirath on mobile phone, there was a dispute between them, and their relationship was not good. As a result, at the behest of accused Kamta, accused Tirath hatched a criminal conspiracy with co-accused to kill Durgesh and make it look like an accident, and formed a common intention to commit the crime. … The evidence presented by the prosecution also proves the motive for murder and the fact that accused Ritesh @ Kaleji absconded after the incident creates a presumption against him.”The Court further noted that, based on the evidence available, accused Mahendra @ Girdhari was not present at the time of the murder. The Court acknowledged that the only evidence against him was his facilitation of conversations between his sister Kamta and Tirath via mobile phone, and that after the incident, Tirath had informed Kamta through Girdhari...

S. 27 Evidence Act | Discovery Of Facts Concerning Co-Accused Would Be Admissible To Establish Charge Of Conspiracy: Chhattisgarh HC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

S. 27 Evidence Act | Discovery Of Facts Concerning Co-Accused Would Be Admissible To Establish Charge Of Conspiracy: Chhattisgarh HC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers