Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits limited admissibility of information received from an accused in police custody, but only to the extent that such information leads to the discovery of a fact. The Supreme Court reiterated that discovery must be the direct outcome of information supplied by the accused and must relate to something previously concealed from the knowledge of the police.
“If there is no element of concealment, there cannot be a recovery under Section 27,” the Bench observed. Articles already in the possession of the accused at the time of arrest, and which could have been seized through a routine search, do not qualify as discoveries under the provision.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the killing of a woman who went missing after being dropped near a village by her husband early one morning. Her body was discovered the following day in bushes along a roadside. The prosecution alleged that three men followed her, sexually assaulted her in an isolated area, and then slit her throat to eliminate evidence.
The accused were charged under Sections 302 (murder) and 376D (gang rape) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial court initially awarded the death penalty, which was later commuted by the High Court to life imprisonment without remission.
Supreme Court Flags Legal Error
While affirming the guilt of the accused, the Supreme Court took exception to the High Court’s reliance on alleged Section 27 recoveries. According to the prosecution’s own version, the material objects were already in the possession of the accused and were handed over to the police during arrest.
The Court noted that such handovers, even if accompanied by a confession, cannot be retroactively labeled as discoveries. Attempting to convert routine seizure into a Section 27 recovery, the Bench warned, goes against the very spirit of the law and risks legitimising otherwise inadmissible confessional evidence.
Sentence Modified, Conviction Stands
Taking an overall view of the case, the Supreme Court modified the sentence imposed on the appellant. The punishment of life imprisonment without remission was reduced to a fixed term of 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.
The judgment serves as a cautionary message to investigating agencies and trial courts to adhere strictly to evidentiary standards. Artificial or mechanical application of Section 27, the Court made clear, undermines both the rights of the accused and the integrity of criminal trials.
Why the Ruling Matters
Legal experts say the decision reinforces long-standing principles governing custodial disclosures and recoveries. It also aligns with earlier Supreme Court precedents that discourage investigative shortcuts and emphasise procedural fairness.