Section 27 Evidence Act- Discovery Of Weapon At The Instance Of Accused By Itself Does Not Prove That He Had Concealed Or Used It : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that merely because discovery of weapon was at the instance of accused, it does not mean he had concealed or used it.The bench observed thus while considering an appeal filed by a murder convict, whose conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld by the Bombay High Court. One of the contentions raised by the appellant was that the eye witnesses in this case are unreliable witnesses. In appeal, the Apex court bench held that both the courts rightly believed the two eye witnesses. However, it noticed a serious infirmity in the reasonings assigned by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court so far as the position of law as regards the discovery of weapon of offence under Section 27 of the Act is concerned.The bench therefore proceeded to explain the correct position of law and how to appreciate the evidence of discovery in accordance with the provisions of the Section 27 of the Act. The court noted that conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as under: (1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; (2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave informations and (4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible – Mohmed Inayatullah vs The State of Maharashtra: AIR (1976) SC 483: (1975) Cur LJ 668 Two conditions for application – (1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered -Kirshnappa vs State Of Karnataka : AIR (1983) SC 446 : (1983 )Cr LJ 846"Further referring to facts and the judgment in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U. P, the bench observed:"What emerges from the evidence of the PW-4 & PW-10 resply is that the appellant stated before the panch witnesses to the effect that "I will show you the weapon concealed adjacent the shoe shop at Parle". This statement does not suggest that the appellant indicated anything about his involvement in the concealment of the weapon. Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it. Therefore, even if discovery by the appellant is accepted, what emerges from the substantive evidence as regards the discovery of weapon is that the appellant disclosed that he would show the weapon used in the commission of offence."A panch nama which can be used only to corroborate the panch has to be read over to the panch The court also noted that in the examination-in-chief of the Panch does not show that he was read over the panchnama before it was exhibited. The bench, referring to Murli and another v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 9 SCC 417: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 12 , observed:"This Court has time and again impressed upon the necessity of reading over the panchnama which can be used as a piece of corroborative evidence. In spite of this, it is regrettable that the learned trial judge did not take the pains to see that the panchnama was read over to the panch before it was exhibited. A panch nama which can be used only to corroborate the panch has to be read over to the panch and only thereafter it can be exhibited. If the panch has omitted to state something which is found in the panchnama, then after reading over the panchnama the panch has to be asked whether that portion of the panchnama is correct or not and whatever reply he gives has to be recorded. If he replies in the affirmative, then only that portion of the panchnama can be read into evidence to corroborate the substantive evidence of the panch. If he replies in the negative, then that part of the panchnama cannot be read in evidence for want of substantive evidence on record. It is, therefore, necessary that care is taken by the public prosecutor who conducts the trial that such a procedure is followed while examining the panch at the trial. It is also necessary that the learned trial judge also sees that the panchnama is read over the panch and thereafter the panchnama is exhibited after following the procedure as indicated above. HeadnotesShahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs State Of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 596 | CrA 739 OF 2017 | 14 July 2022Coram: Justices Surya Kant and JB PardiwalaHeadnotesIndian Evidence Act, 1872 - Ocular Evidence - Principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case - In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such ...

Section 27 Evidence Act- Discovery Of Weapon At The Instance Of Accused By Itself Does Not Prove That He Had Concealed Or Used It : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Section 27 Evidence Act- Discovery Of Weapon At The Instance Of Accused By Itself Does Not Prove That He Had Concealed Or Used It : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers