Evidence Act | Materials Handed Over By Accused During Police Check Can't Be Termed Section 27 Recoveries : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the recovery of incriminating articles from the custody of the accused cannot be treated as a discovery pursuant to a disclosure statement to attract Section 27 of the Evidence Act. To bring a disclosure statement within the ambit of Section 27, there must be prior concealment of the relevant fact or object by the accused, and its subsequent discovery by the police must be a direct consequence of the information furnished by the accused. A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran made this observation, while deciding a criminal appeal on the quantum of sentence imposed on the Appellant-convict, for the offences committed under Sections 302(murder) & 376D(gangrape) read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, along with Section 404 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case stemmed from the killing of a woman, after being dropped near a Village by her husband one morning, she went missing and could not be contacted. Her body was found the next day in bushes along a nearby road. The prosecution alleged that three accused followed her, raped her in an isolated area, and slit her throat to eliminate evidence. They were charged under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act. The trial court awarded the death penalty, later commuted by the High Court to life imprisonment without remission, relying inter alia on alleged confessions and Section 27 recoveries. While the conviction was upheld, the Court held that the High Court's reliance on police recoveries of articles already in the accused's possession, at the time of arrest, to convict the accused by characterising them as discoveries under Section 27, was legally flawed. Since the recovery of the articles, which were in the accused's possession, was made after the accused handed them over to the police during a routine personal check, the Court noted would not amount to discovery, as the element of concealment was missing to get Section 27 attracted. “Even as per the prosecution story, the same were handed over along with the confession, to PW15, which material objects were said to be in the possession of the accused at the time of arrest.”, the court noted, adding that “there was no concealment as such and in any event, on an arrest, when the material objects could have been seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by the police, the attempt to convert it as a recovery under Section 27 cannot at all accepted.” “It goes against the very principle of Section 27, insofar as the disclosure relied upon can only relate to the concealment and the recovery of material objects on such disclosure made, which recovery has to be made in the persons of witnesses. We find absolutely no reason to accept the circumstances as hereinabove stated, relied on by the High Court, to convict the accused.”, the court observed, cautioning against investigative practices that seek to legitimise otherwise inadmissible confessions through artificial recoveries.The Court modified the sentence from life sentence without remission to sentence to 25 years without remission.Cause Title: Shaik Shabuddin Versus State of TelanganaCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1219Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Mukherjee, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.

Evidence Act | Materials Handed Over By Accused During Police Check Can't Be Termed Section 27 Recoveries : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

If there is no element of concealment, there cannot be a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Evidence Act | Materials Handed Over By Accused During Police Check Can't Be Termed Section 27 Recoveries : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

If there is no element of concealment, there cannot be a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers