Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has held that a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 without supporting evidence, is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025). 
• They acquitted an accused convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC, citing lack of corroborative evidence.  
• The Court noted discrepancies in prosecution witness testimonies and questioned the reliability of their statements.  
• Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023), it reiterated that disclosure statements alone cannot secure a conviction. 

What was the Background of Vinobhai v. State of Kerala Case? 

• The case involves a murder that occurred on 31st December 2010, at approximately 11:45 am, where the accused (Vinobhai) allegedly stabbed the victim (Ramakrishnan) with a knife. 
• There was a history of enmity between the accused and the deceased, as the deceased was allegedly involved in the murder of the accused's elder brother. 
• Two primary eyewitnesses, Shaju (PW-4) and Suresh (PW-5), testified against the accused, while a third witness, Thressiamma (PW-6), did not support the prosecution's case. 
• The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 
• The High Court of Kerala confirmed both the conviction and sentence upon appeal. 
• PW-4 was found to be a co-accused with the deceased in the murder case of the appellant's brother. 
• The prosecution claimed recovery of the murder weapon and bloodstained clothes at the instance of the accused. 
• The incident allegedly occurred in front of Joseph's shop, with multiple potential witnesses present at the scene. 
• Political affiliations were noted, with the deceased being a supporter of CPI(M) and the accused being a worker of BJP. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Supreme Court identified material omissions in the testimonies of both key witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) regarding crucial details such as the number of stab wounds and their distance from the crime scene. 
• The Court found the conduct of both witnesses unnatural, as they neither reported the incident to police nor attempted to secure medical help for the victim. 
• The Court noted that PW-4's account of dropping the accused at Maryada Bridge and then returning home before coming back to the crime scene was particularly questionable. 
• The bench observed that the prosecution's failure to examine other alleged eyewitnesses, including Sasi from the nearby toddy shop, created a significant gap in the evidence. 
• The Court determined that the omissions in witness testimonies amounted to contradictions under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 standing alone, cannot be sufficient for conviction. 
• The Court referenced the precedent set in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023) regarding the evidentiary value of recovery statements. 
• The bench concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the unreliability of the key witness testimonies. 
• The Court noted that the accused had already served more than twelve years in prison during the legal proceedings. 

What is Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act,1872? 

• Section 27 operates as a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, creating a specific exception to the general rule that confessions made to police officers while in custody are inadmissible as evidence. 
• The section is founded on the principle of "confirmation by subsequent events," meaning that statements made by an accused in police custody become admissible only when they lead to the discovery of previously unknown facts or evidence. 
• For a statement to be admissible under Section 27, it must satisfy a two-fold requirement: first, the information must be received from an accused person in police custody, and second, it must lead to the discovery of a fact previously unknown to the investigating authorities. 
• The section permits only that portion of the information to be proved which relates distinctly and directly to the fact discovered, excluding any additional or unrelated statements made by the accused. 
• The doctrine requires that the discovery must be the direct result of the information provided by the accused, establishing a clear causal link between the statement and the subsequent discovery. 
• The information provided by the accused must be voluntarily given, without any coercion, threat, or inducement by the police authorities, ensuring protection against forced self-incrimination. 
• The section operates on the premise that if the statement leads to the discovery of a material fact, it carries inherent reliability and truthfulness, making it an exception to the general protection against self-incrimination. 
• The scope of admissibility under Section 27 is limited to the "fact discovered" and does not extend to the entire confession or statement made by the accused in police custody. 
• The section serves a dual purpose: it protects against police misconduct by requiring factual confirmation of confessions while also ensuring that valuable evidence is not excluded merely because it was obtained through information provided by an accused in custody. 
• The evidentiary value of discoveries under Section 27 must be corroborated by independent evidence to secure a conviction, as established by judicial precedents including the recent Supreme Court judgment in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023). 

Which Provision of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Provide for Disclosure Statement? 

• It can be found as proviso to Section 23 (2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 
• Section 23 (2) provides: 
  • No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him. 
  • Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved. 

What are Important Case Laws on Section 27 of IEA? 

• Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976): 
  • It has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. 
  • The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition. 
  • The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. 
  • Lastly, it is only so much information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible. 
• Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (2024): 
  • The requisites for invoking Section 27 are as follows: 
    • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person. 
    • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police. 
    • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information the accused should be in the custody of the police. 
    • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible. 
• State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005): 
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates.