The Supreme Court has ruled that disclosure made by accused in connection to a crime in another trial isn't an admissible evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The Bench comprising of Justice U.U. Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi stated that Police cannot use Disclosure Statement of Accused recorded in another case as Evidence especially when such statement was not made to the jurisdictional Police Officer.
In the present case, four accused had been tried for murder of deceased for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. All were acquitted. The State then challenged the acquittal of only the appellants before High Court, which accepted the appeal filed by the State and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
It was the case of the prosecution that Sonam and her friend Beena (deceased pertaining to another trial) were found in the company of the four accused, on the day and around the time of murder. A Maruti car which was driven by one of the appellants was seen at the a guest house, whose owner (one of the prosecution witnesses) had deposed that one of the appellant had put up at his guest house under false identity with a girl in his company. The prosecution also relied on the recovery of the dead body of deceased pertaining to another trial on the disclosure statement made by one of the appellants
The Court observed that there was no witness who deposed that the appellants were seen with deceased on the fateful day. It said that the prosecution has failed to put on record any material confirming the identity of the alleged girl in accompany. The disclosure statement of one of the appellant led to the discovery of Beena, which is not a subject matter of present trial and is a concern of another trial in progress.
Read Order Here:
Picture Source :
