Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in a case involving the admissibility of statements made by an accused in police custody. The Court clarified that only the specific portion of such statements directly linked to the discovery of evidence is admissible, while other confessional parts remain inadmissible. The Court emphasized that including inadmissible confessions in evidence could unduly influence trial courts.
Brief Facts:
The Case pertained to an appeal against a conviction for abduction and murder. The prosecution alleged that the accused provided information during the police custody about the locations where the victim was abducted, murdered, and the body disposed of. This information was recorded and presented as evidence during the trial. However, the prosecution’s reliance on statements that included confessions about the accused’s involvement in the crime raised concerns about the admissibility of such evidence. The Trial Court had allowed the deposition of the investigating officer, which incorporated inadmissible confessional elements of the accused’s statement, contrary to the safeguards under Section 25 and Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the trial court erred in admitting statements made by the accused while in police custody, which included confessional elements that were inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act. It was contended that only the portion of the statement directly leading to the discovery of material facts could be considered admissible under Section 27. The Counsel emphasized that the inadmissible parts of the statement prejudiced the trial and influenced the outcome.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent defended the inclusion of the accused’s statements, arguing that the information provided by the accused led to the recovery of critical evidence, which was admissible under Section 27. They maintained that the chain of events established through the statements was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Counsel further argued that the brutality of the crime justified stringent measures in the evidentiary process.
Observations of the Court:
The Apex Court provided detailed observations about the admissibility of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It clarified that this section is an exception to Section 25 and Section 26, which generally prohibit the use of confessions made to police officers or while in police custody unless made in the presence of a Magistrate. However, Section 27 permits the admissibility of that part of a statement which directly relates to the discovery of facts. The Court emphasized “Under Section 27, only that part of the statement made by the accused is admissible, which distinctly relates to the discovery. It becomes admissible when a fact is discovered as a consequence of the information received from the accused. What is admissible is only such information furnished by the accused as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered. No other part is admissible”. The Court criticized the trial court for incorporating inadmissible portions of the accused’s confessions into evidence. It observed, “A confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in evidence except to the extent to which Section 27 is applicable. If such inadmissible confessions are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, then there is every possibility that the trial courts may get influenced by it”.
The Court referred to examples to distinguish admissible and inadmissible parts of a statement under Section 27, stating, “Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced, is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. For instance, a statement such as, 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house,' is admissible to the extent that it leads to the discovery of the knife. However, if the statement is extended to include, 'with which I stabbed A,' those additional words are inadmissible since they do not relate distinctly to the discovery of the knife”.
The Court noted that the trial court had improperly allowed the inclusion of inadmissible confessions made by the accused while in police custody, contrary to Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. It stressed that such confessions are prohibited and should not have been recorded in the deposition. Additionally, the Court reiterated the principle that even in cases involving heinous crimes, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be disregarded. Convictions must be based on legally admissible evidence, supported by a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, rather than moral convictions or suspicions. These observations emphasized the judiciary's duty to uphold evidentiary standards and ensure justice based on lawful procedures.
The decision of the Court:
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of evidence proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that moral convictions or suspicions are insufficient for conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed the convictions were set aside and the appellants were ordered to be released immediately unless required in connection with other cases.
Case Title: Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2024
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 728 SC
Coram: Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Vinay Navare (Sr. Adv.), Arpit Rai, Tushima, Ankit Ahluwalia, Prabhsharan Singh Mohi, Aviral Kashyap
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Samar Vijay Singh (AOR), Amit Ojha, Vikas Singh Jangra, Pawan Kishore Singh, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Azeem A Dsot, Kanika
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :