Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only the portion of an accused's statement directly linked to the discovery of evidence is admissible, excluding any confession of guilt. It expressed concerns over trial courts being influenced by inadmissible confessions included in the prosecution's examination-in-chief. This ruling arose during an appeal in a murder case where the investigating officer improperly included the accused's confession while testifying. 

What was the Background of Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. Case? 

• The case involved charges against eight accused persons under Sections 364 (kidnapping), 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 212 (harboring offender), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 
• The incident occurred on July 8, 2013, when the deceased Gurpal Singh left his house in a Ford Fiesta car around 6:30 PM after visiting his sister Paramjeet Kaur. 
• According to the prosecution, when the deceased reached the main gate of Prabhu Prem Puram Ashram, unknown persons in a white car stopped his vehicle and abducted him. The perpetrators took both the victim and his car. 
• The victim's son, Jagpreet Singh (PW-8), filed a First Information Report after being unable to locate his father. 
• On 9th July, 2013, the victim's dismembered body parts were recovered from a canal. 
• The prosecution presented multiple pieces of evidence including:  
  • CCTV footage from Bank of Baroda near the crime scene 
  • Testimony from an eyewitness (PW-26, victim's sister) 
  • Recovery of the Maruti car used in the crime 
  • Recovery of the murder weapon 
  • Recovery of the victim's personal items including driving license 
• The Sessions Court initially convicted all eight accused persons, sentencing them to:  
  • Life imprisonment for offenses under Sections 364, 302, and 120-B 
  • Three years rigorous imprisonment for offense under Section 201 
• On appeal to the High Court:  
  • The conviction was confirmed for the present appellants (Randeep Singh @ Rana and another) 
  • The other accused persons were acquitted 
• The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the two remaining convicted accused persons, challenging their conviction. 
• The prosecution's case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, the testimony of one eyewitness, and recoveries made during the investigation. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the eyewitness testimony (PW-26) contained significant omissions amounting to contradictions under Section 162 CrPC, and the identification of accused was doubtful in absence of a test identification parade, making her evidence unreliable. 
• The Court noted that the prosecution's failure to examine PW-26's husband, who was allegedly another eyewitness and was available for testimony, warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding evidence. 
• Regarding electronic evidence, the Court held that the CCTV footage was inadmissible as the prosecution failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and neither PW-1 nor PW-24 had personally verified the contents of the CD. 
• The Court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, all circumstances forming part of the chain must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the failure to establish even one circumstance breaks the chain of evidence. 
• The Court found that the Trial Judge had erroneously allowed the investigating officer (PW-27) to prove confessions allegedly made by the accused while in police custody, which is expressly prohibited under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 
• The Court reiterated that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only that part of the accused's statement which distinctly relates to and results in the discovery of facts is admissible, and incorporating inadmissible confessional portions in witness depositions risks influencing the Trial Courts. 
• The Court emphasized that despite the brutal nature of an offense, conviction must be based on legally admissible evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and moral conviction cannot substitute for legal proof. 
• The Court concluded that incorporating inadmissible confessions in prosecution witness testimony violates established principles of evidence law and compromises the fairness of trial proceedings. 

What are Confessions and Their Admissibility Under Law? 

When Are Confessions Inadmissible? 

• Indian law generally deems confessions to police officers inadmissible, reflecting a cautious approach to prevent misuse. 
• Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Declares that no confession made to a police officer shall be used as evidence against the accused. 
  • It is now covered under Section 23 (1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).  
• Section 26 of IEA: Extends this principle, barring confessions made in police custody unless recorded in the presence of a magistrate. This ensures neutrality and protects individuals from coercion. 
  • It is now covered under Section 23 (2) of the BSA. 

When Are Confessions Allowed? 

• Section 27 of IEA now covered under proviso of Section 23 of BSA, serves as an exception, allowing specific statements made in police custody to be admissible if they directly result in the discovery of a relevant fact. 
• Discovery Rule: The statement must distinctly lead to the discovery of a new fact related to the crime. 
• Subsequent rulings have refined this interpretation: 
  • In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960), the Supreme Court clarified that the discovery of the fact must be directly linked to the information provided. 
  • State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh (1997) held that the accused need not be formally charged when making the statement for Section 27 of IEA to apply. 

Role of Custody in Confessions 

• The definition of custody is critical under Section 26 of IEA. Courts have interpreted custody to include scenarios where an individual's movements are restricted, even without formal arrest. 
• In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997), the court emphasized that the test for custody involves examining the degree of control exercised by police over the individual. 

Key Judicial Insights on Confessions 

• Voluntariness:  
  • Statements extracted through coercion or undue influence are inadmissible. For instance, in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), the court ruled that confessions obtained through compulsion violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 
• Partial Admissibility:  
  • Only the portion of a statement that directly leads to a discovery is admissible. The rest is excluded, as reiterated in Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976). 
• Joint Disclosures:  
  • In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), the court allowed joint disclosures by co-accused to be admissible, provided they led to separate discoveries. 

Case Law  

• Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966) 
  • When a confession falls under Evidence Act bars (sections 24-26), the entire confession must be discarded, though specific parts may be salvaged if they can be proved under section 27, which acts as an exception.  
• Pulukuri Kotayya & King Emperor (1946) 
  • Admissible portions of confessions under section 27 typically include information that leads to: identification of murder victims' bodies, discovery of weapons used in crimes, or recovery of stolen property, provided these discoveries offer independent corroboration.  
• Legal Remembrancer v. Lalit Mohan Singh Roy (1921) 
  • Courts may admit severable portions of confessions that establish motive, opportunity, and introductory facts, even if the main confession is inadmissible, as long as these portions can be clearly separated from the inadmissible parts.