Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) held that when incriminating items are found in locations accessible to the general public, they should not be the sole basis for establishing the guilt of the accused in the case of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka.

What is the Background of the Manjunath v. State of Karnataka Case?

• The deceased, namely Byregowda and his brothers had gone to the fields to work.
  • Allegedly, the accused armed with weapons such as clubs, iron rods and choppers came and threatened them.
• The brothers managed to escape but while the deceased was attempting to do so, he was grievously assaulted by the accused by means of an iron rod and chopper.
• Immediate medical treatment was administered to the deceased and the police were immediately informed consequent to which a First Information Report (FIR) was recorded.
• After due investigation, the challan was filed, and the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions and charges were framed under Section 120B, 143, 447, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The accused denied allegations against them and claimed trial.
• The Trial Court concluded that the interconnected circumstances were insufficient to definitively and convincingly establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
  • On the point of recovery of weapons, the Court observed that although the weapons had been recovered at the instance of accused persons, a doubt is created on the veracity of the seizure on the ground that the clubs were recovered from a place of common access and from places where others also resided.
• The State, aggrieved by the acquittals, appealed to the Karnataka High Court (HC).
• The HC overturned the acquittal awarded by the trial court and reversed it by sentencing appellants for offences under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
• Hence, the present appeal was made to the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol while hearing an appeal relied on following case:
  • In the Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) case, the SC guided that for application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) following must be ensured:
    • The discovery of a fact must be in consequence of information from a person accused of an offense.
    • The discovery of such a fact must be deposed.
    • The accused must be in police custody at the time of receiving the information.
    • It was further observed by the court that only "so much of the information" as distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible under Section 27 of IEA.
• The Court in the present case observed, “We, further cannot lose sight of the fact that sticks, whether bamboo or otherwise, are commonplace objects in village life, and therefore, such objects, being hardly out of the ordinary, and that too discovered in places of public access, cannot be used to place the gauntlet of guilt on the accused persons.” and acquitted the accused.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• Section 27 of the IEA:
  • Section 27 - How much of information received from accused may be proved - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence 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 thereby discovered, may be proved.
  • It states that when something is discovered as a consequence of information given by an accused person, then any fact discovered as a result of this information is considered relevant in court.
  • This section essentially allows for the admissibility of facts or objects that have been found through the disclosure or information provided by the accused during an investigation or trial.
  • The SC earlier in the case of Rajesh v State of MP (2023) has stated that for application of Section 27 IEA, two essential conditions must be met:
    • The individual must be 'accused of any offence,' and
    • They must be in 'police custody' at the time the confession is made.