S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Made Outside Police Custody Not Admissible : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 17) acquitted a man convicted of murdering his six-year-old stepdaughter, ruling that a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of evidence is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act only if the accused was in police custody at the time of making the statement. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran noted that the discovery of the deceased bone remnants based on the accused's disclosure statements can't be admitted in evidence, as the accused was not in custody while making such disclosure statements."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."Reference was made to the decision in Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor 1931 SCC Online Cal 146 which held that "if information came from a person who was not in the custody of the police, then it cannot be brought under Section 27. "The Court noted that the memorandum under Section 27 was recorded on October 13, 2018 at 10.30 am, while the arrest memo showed that the accused was arrested only at 10.00 pm the same day. Since the accused was not in police custody at the time he made the statement, the Court held that the disclosure was outside the ambit of Section 27.Though the Court acknowledged that “custody” need not mean formal arrest and could include surveillance or restraint, as explained in Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it found no material to show that the accused was under any such restraint when the statement was recorded.Relying on the precedent in State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) 1 SCC 272, the Court held that although a disclosure statement made outside custody falls outside the ambit of Section 27, it can be admissible to show the accused's conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The bench, however, underscored that such evidence is weak and cannot, alone, form the basis for a conviction.“The knowledge of the accused, which led to the detection of the bone remnants though not acceptable under Section 27 would all the same be acceptable evidence under Section 8, which by itself is a weak piece of evidence. The evidence under Section 8 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction.”, the court observed. While the DNA evidence confirmed the death of the child, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran noted it did not conclusively link the accused to the crime, especially given the lack of a definite time of death and the long, unexplained delay by the family in reporting the child missing, even though they knew the child was last with the accused. “The long gap when there was no complaint made about the missing child and the factum of none having questioned the accused, despite the family and police having been told that she went with the accused tilts the scales in favour of the accused; especially since he was released on 08.10.2018, two days before the FIR was lodged. Pertinent also is that since the corpus delicti was not recovered, there is no time of death specified. We are hence unable to uphold the conviction of the accused, and he has to be necessarily given the benefit of doubt.”, the court observed. Though the appeal was allowed, the Court, however, applauded the Government Advocate who, with astute vigor, addressed arguments despite the major pitfalls in the police's investigation. “We cannot but observe that if the investigation had been half as good as the preparation of the State Counsel, the shroud of mystery over the poor child's disappearance and death, could have been unravelled.”, the court remarked. “We also appreciate the efforts put in by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, in probing the State to effectively bring forth the inept handling of the investigation.”, the court added. The appeal was allowed. Cause Title: Rohit Jangde Versus The State of ChhattisgarhCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 164Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chandrika Prasad Mishra, AOR Ms. Prashasti Singh, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Utsav Madan, Adv. Ms. Swati Surbhi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Mr. Divya Tripathi, Adv.

S. 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Made Outside Police Custody Not Admissible : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags