2024 Supreme(SC) 6

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ.
Perumal Raja @ Perumal - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. By Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019)
Decided On : 03-01-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Disclosure statement – Once information is given by accused, same information cannot be used even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody – Section 27 of Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures.
(2) Confession includes not only admission of offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to offence.
(3) Circumstantial evidence – Distinction has to be drawn between incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance after a chain is complete and defence or explanation given by accused is found to be false.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 106 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Motive for crime was inter se family property disputes – Superimposition Test confirmed that mortal remains were that of deceased – Homicidal death of deceased, disclosure statement and consequent recovery have been proved beyond doubt and debate – Acquittal of co-accused is for want of evidence against them – Section 27 of Evidence Act could not have been applied to other co-accused – Once information is given by accused, same information cannot be used even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody – Section 27 of Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures, but this is not one such case – Trial court rightly held other co-accused not guilty – Conviction of appellant upheld. (Paras 31, 36, 40, 43 and 45)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Section 27 of Evidence Act is based on doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – Fact which is discovered as a consequence of information given is admissible in evidence – Fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical object and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved – Facts discovered and recovery is an assurance that information given by a person accused of offence can be relied – However, Section 27 of Evidence Act does not lay down principle that discovery of a fact is to be equated to object produced or found – Discovery of fact resulting in recovery of a physical object exhibits knowledge or mental awareness of person accused of offence as to existence of physical object at the particular place – Discovery of a fact includes object found, place from which it was produced and knowledge of accused as to its existence – To this extent, factum of discovery combines both physical object as well as mental consciousness of informant accused in relation thereto – Only that part of information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible – Pre-requisite of police custody, within meaning of Section 27 of Evidence Act, ought to be read pragmatically and not formalistically or euphemistically. (Paras 19, 22 and 25)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Expression “custody” under Section 27 of Evidence Act does not mean formal custody – It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by police – As soon as accused or suspected person comes into hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is under a check and is in “custody” within meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of Evidence Act – Even if accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in custody of police – A person giving word of mouth information to police, which may be used as evidence against him, may be deemed to have submitted himself to “custody” of police officer – Evidentiary value to be attached on evidence produced before court in terms of Section 27 of Evidence Act cannot be codified or put in a strait-jacket formula – It depends upon facts and circumstances of case – Holistic and inferential appreciation of evidence is required to be adopted in a case of circumstantial evidence. (Paras 25, 28, 29 and 30)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 24, 25 and 26 – Confessional statement – Admissibility in evidence – Bar under Section 25 of Evidence Act applies equally whether or not person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal trial was in custody at the time of making confession – For ban to be effective the person need not have been accused of an offence when he made confession – Expression “accused person” in Section 24 and expression “a person accused of any offence” in Sections 26 and 27 have same connotation, and describe the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding – Adjectival clause “accused of any offence” is descriptive of person against whom a confessional statement made by him is declared not provable and does not predicate a condition of that person at the time of making statement – Confession includes not only admission of offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to offence, except to the extent that ban is lifted by Section 27 of Evidence Act. (Paras 26 and 27)

(E) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Five Golden Principles (Panchsheel) – Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Distinction has to be drawn between incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance after a chain is complete and defence or explanation given by accused is found to be false in which event said falsehood is added to reinforce conclusion of court – If defence case is false it would constitute an additional link as to case of prosecution. (Paras 37 and 38)

Facts of the case:

Impugned judgment by High Court of Judicature at Madras affirms conviction of appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 201 of IPC, by Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

Findings of Court:

Even if Section 8 of Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict co-accused. Trial court rightly held other co-accused not guilty. For the same reason, acquittal of co-accused who was earlier absconding, is also of no avail.

Result : Appeal dismissed.