S. 27 Evidence Act | Discovery Based On Accused's Statement Forms "Formidable Link" In Circumstantial Evidence Chain : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (February 20) upheld the conviction in a ransom murder case, relying on the convict's disclosure statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi heard the case that rested purely on circumstantial evidence, however, the Appellant-convict's disclosure statements under Section 27 played a decisive role in completing the chain of circumstances to connect the Appellant to the crime.

The case dates back to July 2009, when the deceased victim went missing in Indore. Shortly after, her husband received ransom calls demanding ₹5 lakh from her mobile number. The police investigation led them to the appellant, who had sold the victim's mobile phone to a third party. Following his arrest, Appellant's disclosure statement led the police to recover the victim's Scooty from a parking lot, and tragically, her body from a well near the Indore Bypass Road.

Because there were no eyewitnesses, the prosecution's case rested heavily on the circumstantial evidence, particularly Appellant's Section 27 disclosure statements that led to the discovery of the body from the place referred to in the statement, a fact not known to anybody except the appellant.

However, the Appellant argued against the conviction, highlighting the aspect of delay in registering the FIR, failure of the police to obtain the call detail report of the alleged ransom calls, and failure to prove motive.

The Appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the trial court, which was upheld by the High Court, prompting him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Affirming the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra observed that since the body of the deceased victim was discovered based on the Appellant's statement, it satisfied the "doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events”, making his statement reliable and admissible, sufficient to convict the accused.

“when a fact is discovered on the strength of information obtained from a prisoner, such discovery serves as a guarantee of the truthfulness of the information supplied…whether the information is confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, if it results in the discovery of a fact, it becomes reliable information.”, the court observed.

Reference was made to the case of Udai Bhan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 229 where it was held that the discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it is produced, and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.

Applying the law to the present case, the Court observed:

“In the present case, the information given by the appellant while in Police custody distinctly relates to the fact discovered, namely, recovery of the dead body of the deceased concealed in a sack and thrown in a specific well. This constitutes a "distinct fact" as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as the recovery of the body from that precise location could only have been made on the basis of information furnished by someone who had personal knowledge of its disposal. The recovery embodies the "doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events" as explained in Bodhraj (supra)—the actual discovery of the body from the exact location disclosed by the appellant is a guarantee that the information supplied by him is true. The fact discovered embraces the place from where the object was recovered (the well near Tasaali Dhaba) and the knowledge of the appellant as to its existence at that location. This information is not within public domain or capable of discovery through routine investigation. These circumstances constitute a formidable link in the chain pointing towards the culpability of the appellant.”

“…we are satisfied that the prosecution has established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that points irresistibly to the guilt of the appellant…. The deceased went missing on 25.07.2009; ransom calls were made from her mobile phone demanding Rs. 5 lakh; the appellant came into possession of the deceased's mobile phone and sold it; the dead body was recovered from a well at the specific disclosure of the appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; the body was identified as that of the deceased; the deceased's Scooty was recovered at the appellant's disclosure; and the medical evidence established that the death was homicidal in nature. These circumstances, when viewed cumulatively, form a complete chain. No other reasonable conclusion is possible except for the inference that the appellant committed the murder of Archana @ Pinki. The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly appreciated the evidence placed on record by the prosecution and have correctly determined the culpability of the appellant for the murder of the deceased.”, the court held.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was granted liberty to apply for remission, considering the fact that he had undergone more than 15 years of imprisonment.

Cause Title: NEELU @ NILESH KOSHTI VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 179

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR Mr. S. Anand, Adv. Mr. Harsh, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Saju Jakob, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, Adv. Mr. Desam Sudhakara Reddy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.