S.27 Evidence Act | Information Given By One Accused Leading To Discovery Can't Be Used To Connect All Accused: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the information leading to discovery that was received from one accused person cannot be used to connect all the accused persons to the alleged offence. In the present case, the prosecution had placed reliance on Exhibit P7(a) confession but the Court felt that it cannot be relied on since the exact information given by each of the accused persons is not separately recorded or proved.Justice P.V. Balakrishnan remarked that it is impossible to believe that all accused persons spoke simultaneously and in one voice in such a case. He observed that when there are multiple persons accused, the investigating officer is bound to specify the words used by each accused so that a discovery pursuant to the information can be connected to only the person who gave the information alone and not all accused.The petitioner in the case was the second accused in a crime alleging commission of offences under Sections 457, 380 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution had alleged that the three accused persons broke into a Beverages Corporation and stole around 50 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.The trial court convicted the petitioner and 3rd accused. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. He then approached the High Court in revision.The Court noted that in the present case, the investigating officer had deposed that he questioned all three accused in the case and received the same information in Exhibit P7(a). However, the exact information provided by each accused was not recorded.Referring to the Apex Court decision in Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. (1983 KHC 413), the Court observed:“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.”It also referred to various other decision where it was categorically held that conviction cannot be based solely on recovery as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it has to be corroborated.Since, in the present case, finding of guilt was based on the discovery and there were no witnesses who saw the commission of the crime, the Court felt that the conviction cannot sustain.Thus, it set aside the judgment of conviction of the petitioner and set him at liberty.Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 1438 of 2017Case Title: Selvan v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 675Counsel for the petitioner: Sangeeth, Saijo Hassan, Benoj C. Augustin, U.M. Hassan, P. Parvathy, Rafeek V.K., Vishnu BhuvanendranCounsel for the respondent: U. Jayakrishnan – Public ProsecutorClick to Read/Download Judgment

S.27 Evidence Act | Information Given By One Accused Leading To Discovery Can't Be Used To Connect All Accused: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

S.27 Evidence Act | Information Given By One Accused Leading To Discovery Can't Be Used To Connect All Accused: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers