Source: Chhattisgarh High Court 

Why in News?

The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld murder convictions based heavily on circumstantial evidence tied to an extramarital affair, significance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The Court observed that in such cases, the prosecution must prove every link in the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for innocence. 

• Justices Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held in Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh . 

What was the Background of Dilip Sariwan v. State of Chhattisgarh? 

• The case involve the murder of Durgesh Panika, which occurred between the night of 15^th August, 2020, and 16^th August, 2020. 
• On 16^th August, 2020, at around 7:00 AM, Durgesh Panika's body was found near Gulab Raj's motor pump in Harratola, along with an abandoned motorcycle. 
• The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was homicidal in nature, resulting from head injuries. 
• The prosecution alleged that the murder was the result of a conspiracy involving multiple individuals, including Durgesh's wife, Kamta Panika, and her alleged lover, Tirath Lal Kashipuri. 
• The motive for the murder was reportedly connected to an extramarital affair between Kamta Panika and Tirath Lal Kashipuri, which had caused tensions in Kamta's marriage with Durgesh. 
• Several individuals were accused of being involved in the conspiracy and murder, including Tirath Lal Kashipuri, Dilip Sariwan, Pawan Marco, Jai Prakash Yadav, Ritesh Verma, Mahendra Panika, and Kamta Panika. 
• The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses to the murder. 
• Key pieces of evidence included Call Detail Records (CDRs), tower location reports, seized items such as clothing and a jack rod, and forensic reports indicating the presence of blood on various articles. 
• The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to kill Durgesh, lured him to a location under the pretext of drinking alcohol, and then murdered him using a jack rod. 
• After the murder, the accused allegedly attempted to stage the death as an accident by placing the body on Harratola road. 
• The case was investigated by the police, and various items were seized based on the memorandum statements of the accused. 
• The prosecution charged the accused under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 34 (common intention), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obligated to prove every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt to complete the chain of circumstances, leaving no room for any hypothesis of innocence. 
•  The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mehboob Ali & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2016, states that discoveries of facts under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, pertaining to other accused persons are admissible to establish charges of conspiracy in furtherance of common intention. 
• The Court observed that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows for the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts, even if such information amounts to a confession, provided it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 
• The Court applied the "five golden principles" of circumstantial evidence as established by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) recognizing that the case at hand lacked direct evidence. 
• Upon examination of the Call Detail Records (CDR), the Court determined that the deceased, Durgesh Panika, was aware of the illicit relationship between accused Kamta and accused Tirath, which provided the motive for the murder. 
• The Court concluded that accused Kamta, despite her absence at the murder scene, was guilty of criminal conspiracy for instructing Tirath to "remove Durgesh from her path." 
• The Court determined that the prosecution successfully established its case by linking 11 circumstances, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had formed a common intention to murder Durgesh Panika between the night of 15.08.2020 and 16.08.2020. 
• The Court, finding no illegality or infirmity in the trial Court's judgment, dismissed the criminal appeals and upheld the life imprisonment sentences of the appellants. 

What is Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 ? 

• Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act ,1872 deals with How much of information received from accused may be proved.  
  • Now covers under Section 23 of BSA,2023 
• Section 23 of BSA, 2023 deals with Confession to police officer. 
• It states that : 
  • Any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence against the person accused of an offence. 
  • A confession made by a person while in police custody is inadmissible as evidence against that person, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 
  • Oral admissions regarding the contents of documents may be relevant and admissible in certain circumstances, subject to the rules of evidence. 
  • In civil cases, admissions made by parties may be relevant and admissible as evidence, subject to specific rules and exceptions. 
  • A confession obtained through inducement, threat, coercion, or promise is deemed irrelevant and inadmissible in criminal proceedings. 
  • Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers, there exists an exception under Section 23 BSA,2023. 
  • Section 23 provides that when a fact is discovered as a consequence of information received from an accused person in police custody, so much of such information may be proved as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 
  • The admissibility under Section 23 applies regardless of whether the information amounts to a confession or not. 
  • The rationale behind Section 23 is to allow the admission of information that leads to the discovery of a relevant fact, even if that information forms part of an otherwise inadmissible confession. 
  • For information to be admissible under Section 23, there must be a clear nexus between the information provided by the accused and the fact discovered. 
  • Only that portion of the information which relates distinctly and directly to the fact discovered is admissible, not the entire statement or confession. 
  • The discovery of the fact must be a consequence of the information received from the accused while in police custody. 
  • The fact discovered must be unknown to the police before the information was received from the accused. 
  • The admissibility under Section 23 is limited to the information that relates distinctly to the fact discovered and does not extend to other parts of the statement or confession. 
  • The court must carefully scrutinize the information and the discovered fact to ensure that only the relevant portion is admitted as evidence. 
  • The burden of proving that the requirements of Section 27 have been met lies with the prosecution. 
  • The application of Section 23 must be balanced against the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 

Case Law 

• In 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. 
• In Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court held that formal accusation and formal police custody are essential pre-requisites under Section 27 of the IEA.