Supreme Court: Only That Much Information As Is Clearly Connected With Fact Discovered Can Be Treated As Relevant U/S 27 Evidence Act

The Supreme Court has clarified that under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi explained, “As per Advance Law Lexicon10, “distinctly” means clearly, explicitly, definitely, precisely, unmistakably, in a distinct manner. Therefore, “distinctly”, as used in Section 27, is meant to exclude certain language and to limit and confine the information which may be proved within definite limits and not necessarily to include everything which may relate to that information. The said word “distinctly” indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably, apparently, used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information. Therefore, only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’.”

The Bench noted that the word ‘distinctly’ has its own importance which is a derivative of the word ‘distinct’ and as per Concise Oxford English Dictionary, it means recognizable, different in nature, individual or separate, readily distinguishable by the senses.

Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused, while AOR Akshay Amritanshu appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution’s case, an incident took place in the year 2016 in a village wherein a woman was murdered. An FIR was registered at Police Station by the deceased woman’s brother. The basis of registration of FIR was a vocal telephonic message received from the Control Room of alleged commission of murder by three boys who arrived in a car and shot the deceased by means of pistol. The police found huge congregation on spot where deceased’s brother gave his statement that his sister was married to a man who had killed his three children and while undergoing jail sentence, he committed suicide in jail. Thereafter, the deceased’s mother-in-law and brother-in-law allegedly did not allow her to step into the matrimonial home.

It was alleged that the possession of her house and land was forcefully taken by them. However, the deceased succeeded in the Court case involving the said property. It was further alleged that hatching a criminal conspiracy with the help of three young boys, deceased was shot by firearm and succumbed to injuries. Resultantly, the Appellant and co-accused were arrested. The Trial Court acquitted the co-accused and convicted the Appellant only. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and the same was affirmed by the High Court by mainly relying upon the recovery of the pistol, two live cartridges, and the FSL Report. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “As per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the confession given in the Police custody, cannot be proved against a person accused of an offence unless it is given in the immediate presence of the Magistrate. However, Section 27 deals with how much of the information as received from the accused, in Police custody may be proved. … On a glance of the language of the said section, which starts with the expression “provided that”, it is apparent that this Section is an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26.”

The Court added that the language indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person who is in custody of the Police in connection of an offence, it must relate distinctly to the fact so discovered.

“For relevancy, the “facts thereby discovered” is preceded with the words “so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly”. Special emphasis must be given to the word ‘distinctly’.”, it further said.

The Court was of the view that it becomes necessary to examine when the eye-witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and no evidence of ‘last seen’ has been adduced, and the alleged motive against the Appellant remains unproved, however, mere recovery and the FSL report can, by itself, sustain the conviction of the Appellant – more particularly when other co-accused having motive has been acquitted.

“… we reiterate that in this case, Pradeep (PW-1) is the brother of the deceased and the alleged eye-witness of her murder. He along with his brother, Sandeep (PW-5) have not supported the case of prosecution to prove the presence of the appellant on the spot. Any other circumstance connecting the accused in commission of the offence and to show his presence on spot or with deceased has not been proved by the prosecution. Initially in the FIR, the accused was not named. His name came up after five days of the incident on suggestion by the eyewitness Pradeep (PW-1) in form of supplementary statement implicating the appellant and other co-accused”, it noted.

The Court further remarked that pursuant to the disclosure statement of the Appellant, a country-made pistol and two live cartridges were allegedly recovered, however, the prosecution has not established that the said recovery distinctly relates to the commission of the offence or that the weapon so recovered was the same which was used to commit murder so as to constitute a relevant fact distinctively related to the disclosure.

“The chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was not duly proved. Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the body of the deceased, such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence”, it added.

The Court also remarked that the alleged motive, as projected by the prosecution, primarily pertains to the co-accused persons, who have either not been charge-sheeted or have been acquitted by the Trial Court and the purported motive attributed to the Appellant is founded merely on a speculative quid pro quo arrangement with the acquitted co-accused and lacks support from any credible evidence.

Conclusion

The Court held that the Trial Court and the High Court failed to appreciate the facts and evidence and as such, the findings of conviction of the Appellant for the alleged offences and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life cannot be sustained.

“In the totality of the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. … the Trial Court and the High Court both have committed error in convicting the appellant without adverting to the fundamental aspects applying the principles of criminal jurisprudence, as discussed hereinabove”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the Appellant of all the charges.

Cause Title- Govind v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1318)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, AOR Apoorva Singhal, Advocates Tanuj Agarwal, R. Venkataraman, Alok Kumar, and Jasbir Singh.

Respondent: AOR Akshay Amritanshu, Advocates Drishti Rawal, Drishti Saraf, Sarthak Srivastava, and Mayur Goyal.

Click here to read/download the Judgment