S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Are Insufficient For Conviction Without Supporting Evidence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court stated that a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act unaccompanied by the supporting evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reasoned that the conviction cannot be solely based on the disclosure statement because it is considered a weak piece of evidence.The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan acquitted the accused convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC, noting that aside from the disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the weapon, no supporting evidence was presented to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The allegation against the appellant is that on 31st December 2010, at about 11:45 am, he stabbed Ramakrishnan (deceased) with a knife. Grievous injuries were caused to the deceased as a consequence of which, he died. According to the case of the prosecution, there was previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased as he was involved in the murder of the appellant's elder brother. The Appellant challenged his conviction pointing out discrepancies and omissions in Prosecution Witness's statements, such as the omission of crucial details like the number of stab wounds and the distance from which they witnessed the crime. Additionally, he argued that the prosecution had failed to examine other alleged eyewitnesses, and the witnesses had not reported the incident to the police immediately, casting doubt on their credibility. Opposing the Appellant's stand, the State argued that the minor omissions in the PWs did not undermine their credibility. Both witnesses had consistently identified the appellant as the perpetrator, and the recovery of the weapon from the appellant further supported the prosecution's case, the state contended. The judgment authored by Justice Oka cast doubt over the prosecution's case noting that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence because of several material omissions in their statements, including discrepancies in the number of stab wounds and their physical proximity to the crime. Further, the court questioned the reliability of the witness's statement upon finding that both the witnesses neither made any effort to report the crime to the police immediately nor attempted to take the deceased to the hospital. Now, the question that appeared before the Court was whether a disclosure statement under Section 27 leading to the discovery of the knife unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction. The Court, citing Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023), held that a disclosure statement alone, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to secure a conviction, as it cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. “A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”, the court said in Manoj Kumar Soni's case. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the Appellant of the offences alleged against him. Case Title: Vinobhai versus State of KeralaCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 127Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearances: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pranjal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Atul Shankar Vinod, Adv. Ms. Madiya Mushtaq Nadroo, Adv. Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Are Insufficient For Conviction Without Supporting Evidence : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Are Insufficient For Conviction Without Supporting Evidence : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers