“Recovery Evidence” Under Section 27 Of The Evidence Act- Questions & Answers By Justice V Ramkumar [Part-V]

Q.21 At the time of his arrest the accused was seen wearing the same blood stained shirt which he was wearing 2 or 3 days ago when the murder was committed. The defence argues that it was unlikely that the accused would continue to wear the same shirt. Whether the defence argument can be accepted in all cases ?. Ans. No, especially if the bloodstain had become dull. In paragraph 19 of Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216 = 1957 Cri.L.J. 481 – 4 Judges – N. H. Bhagwati, Syed Jafer Imam, S. K. Das, P. Govinda Menon – JJ, it is observed as follows:- “With regard, to the blood stained shirt (Ex.P5), the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the very clear evidence on the record merely on the ground that a person who had committed a murder would not continue to put on a blood stained shirt for two or three days. The learned Sessions Judge forgot that the marks of blood found on Ex. P5 were very faint marks, and the appellant when he changed his pyjama, as he said in his confession, might not have noticed that some faint marks of blood remained on the shirt. It was argued before us that the appellant did not go into the room where the two boys were killed, and therefore there could not be stains of blood on his shirt. It is clear, however, from the confession of the appellant that he did go into the room where the two boys were killed. When the appellant was examined under S.342, Criminal Procedure Code, he denied that the shirt belonged to him. There was the evidence of a number of witnesses who proved that the shirt with faint stains of blood was taken from the person of the appellant on the 21st Feb.” Q.22 Whether from the mere recovery of the incriminating object the Court can convict the accused for the offence alleged? Ans. No. Mere recovery of dead body either pointed out by the accused or recovered as a result of the disclosure statement made by him, would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he committed murder. There should be other substantive evidence or corroborative circumstances from which the Court can raise a presumption that the accused was the offender. (Vide para 9 of Kanbi Karsan Jadav v. State of Gujarat AIR 1966 SC 821 = 1966 Cri.L.J. 605 – J. L. Kapur, Raghubar Dayal – JJ.) The celebrated Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emporer AIR 1947 PC 67 – Lord Wright, Lord Simonds, Lord Uthwatt and Sir John Beaumont, itself contains the answer to this question. Towards the end of paragraph 11 this is what the Privy Council observed:- “Except in cases in which the possession, or concealment, of an object constitutes the gist of the offence charged, it can seldom happen that information relating to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is only one link in the chain of proof, and the other links must be forged in a manner allowed by law.” Again towards the end of paragraph 10, the Privy Council has observed as follows:- “Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife. Knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the wife of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovere is very relevant.” In paragraph 21 of Manoj Kumar Soni v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No: 1030/2023) decided on 11-08-2023 by S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta – JJ, it is observed as follows:- “21. 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.” “22. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements under Section 27, Evidence Act made by the accused himself seems to be well established. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya and others vs. King-Emperor holds the field even today wherein it was held that the provided information must be directly relevant to the discovered fact, including details about the physical object, its place of origin, and the accused person's awareness of these aspects. The Privy Council observed: The difficulty, however great, of proving that a fact discovered on information supplied by the accused is a relevant fact can afford no justification for reading into s. 27 something which is not there, and admitting in evidence a confession barred by s. 26. Except in cases in which the possession, or concealment, of an object constitutes the gist of the offence charged, it can seldom happen that ...

“Recovery Evidence” Under Section 27 Of The Evidence Act- Questions & Answers By Justice V Ramkumar [Part-V]

Justice V Ramkumar

Tags