Supreme Court: Determining the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 that deals with how much of the information as received from the accused, in Police custody may be proved, the bench of JK Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ interpreted the phrase ‘fact thereby discovered’ and held that only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’.
Factual Background
In the case at hand, the deceased was shot dead on 12-06-2026 in a village in Haryana. Her brother lodged an FIR stating that three men arrived in an Alto car and one of them pulled out a pistol and shot her.
Following the FIR, the Investigating Officer and his team rushed to the scene, where they found a crowd and took the brother’s statement. Five days later, deceased’s brother named three individuals as the accused, alleging a conspiracy with deceased’s in-laws.
Following this, the 3 accused were arrested. From Accused no. 1, police seized a motorcycle, and from Accused no. 2 (the appellant herein), they recovered a country-made pistol and two live cartridges and from Accused no. 3, police claimed they recovered the Alto car and another pistol from his vehicle.
While the Mother- in-law and Brother-in-law of the deceased were also named in the FIR but they were later cleared.
During the trial, 22 prosecution witnesses testified, but the accused presented no defense witnesses. On 31-08-2018, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act. The Court, however, acquitted the other two. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later upheld this conviction, relying heavily on the weapon recovery and the forensic (FSL) report.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Interpretation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act
The Court explained that Section 27 of the Evidence Act starts with the expression “provided that”, and is an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26. Further, the language indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person who is in custody of the Police in connection of an offence, it must relate “distinctly” to the fact so discovered.
Noticing that the phrase “facts thereby discovered” is preceded with the words “so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly”, the Court stressed on giving special emphasis to the word ‘distinctly’ and held that the word “distinctly”, as used in Section 27 of the Evidence, is meant to exclude certain language and to limit and confine the information which may be proved within definite limits and not necessarily to include everything which may relate to that information.
“The said word “distinctly” indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably, apparently, used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information. Therefore, only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’.”
Ruling on Facts
In the case at hand, it was the prosecution’s case that the motive behind the murder was tied to a property dispute as the deceased had allegedly won a court case against her in‑laws and the acquitted co-accused, along with the in-laws, had a grudge against her. The appellant’s own disclosure stated that he and Accused No. 3 were from the same village, and that Accused No. 3 asked him to assist in the murder. He, hence, allegedly helped the other two co-accused, he may have some quid pro quo in anticipated reciprocation of help.
In the disclosure of Accused no. 3, it was alleged that the pistol recovered from the appellant was handed over by him to the appellant and he has one more pistol with him. The Court noted that the disclosure statement of the appellant recorded in custody as far as it distinctly discloses the commission of offence cannot be used against the accused. It is only the recovery made in furtherance to the said disclosure may have some relevance. Also, it was worth noting that the appellant never said that the pistol seized from him was the same weapon used in the crime, weakening the link between his disclosure and the actual offense.
Further scrutinized the recovery, the Court observed that the pistol was found in an unlocked iron box in appellant’s house, a place accessible to multiple people, and without any independent witnesses during the search. The Court emphasised that the extent to which such recovery can be relied upon to establish the appellant’s guilt requires careful scrutiny in light of judicial precedents.
The Court, hence, noted that the prosecution has not established that the said recovery distinctly relates to the commission of the offence or that the weapon so recovered was the same which was used to commit murder so as to constitute a relevant fact distinctively related to the disclosure.
The Court, hence, found that the chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and deposit of the material exhibits was incomplete and not duly proved. It held that,
“Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the body of the deceased, such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence.”
The Court also stressed on the fact that the alleged motive, as projected by the prosecution, primarily pertains to the co-accused persons, who had either not been charge-sheeted or had been acquitted by the Trial Court. Whereas the purported motive attributed to the appellant was founded merely on a speculative quid pro quo arrangement with the acquitted co-accused and lacks support from any credible evidence.
Conclusion
Noticing that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the Trial Court and the High Court both committed error in convicting the appellant without adverting to the fundamental aspects applying the principles of criminal jurisprudence, and hence, acquitted the appellant of all the charges and directed his release from custody, unless required in any other offence.
[Govind v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2456, decided on 14-11-2025]
*Judgement Authored by Justice JK Maheshwari
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tanuj Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Apoorva Singhal, AOR, Mr. R. Venkataraman, Adv., Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv., Mr. Jasbir Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv., Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv., Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv.