A joint statement made by two or more accused persons is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 27 - JOINT STATEMENT - ADMISSIBILITY - SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE A JOINT STATEMENT MADE BY TWO OR MORE ACCUSED PERSONS.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, accused No. 2, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court. The prosecution's case was that the appellant and his father and brother (accused Nos. 1 and 3) had killed the deceased, Jayaram, in a dispute over land. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances to prove its case: (1) motive, (2) the discovery of the dead body at the instance of accused No. 1, (3) the discovery of an axe and pickaxe at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2, (4) the subsequent conduct of the accused, and (5) that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the discovery of the dead body at the instance of accused No. 1 could not be used against accused No. 2. The Court also held that the discovery of the axe and pickaxe at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2 was inadmissible because a joint statement by two or more accused persons is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether a joint statement made by two or more accused persons is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not contemplate a joint statement made by two or more accused persons. A joint statement is a statement made by two persons simultaneously, which is practically inconceivable with reference to section 27 of the Evidence Act. Two or more persons cannot in chorus make a statement contemplated by section 27. A joint statement must in practice mean the same statement or similar statements made by two or more persons. In such a case only the statement which is made earlier and which leads to the discovery will be admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the subsequent statement or statements will not be. 2. The prosecution had failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. The two witnesses who claimed to have seen the scuffle between the accused and the deceased had not mentioned this fact in their earliest statements to the police.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the convictions and sentences recorded by the Sessions Court were set aside. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

JUDGMENT - JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---In Sessions Case No. 148 of 1974 tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Sholapur three persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 and section 202 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 is the father while accused Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. The following table brings out the relationship between the parties :

Namdeo

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |

Krishna Accused 1 Babu

| |

-------------------------------------- |

| | |

Govind Accused 2 Gopal accused 3 Jayaram (deceased)

=Sindhu

Jayaram, who is the victim of the offence for which this prosecution was launched, is the nephew of accused No. 1 and the cousin of accused Nos. 2 and 3. They are all residents of village called Tadavale in Barsi Taluka of Sholapur District. We are not narrating the detailed allegations, which according to the prosecution led to the commission of this crime because it is not disputed that the crime had been committed and further because this appeal can be disposed of on a very narrow ground. It may now be mentioned that there was dispute between accused No. 1 and Jairam relating to the ownership of a land.

2. On 25th of May, 1974, alleges the prosecution, Jayaram left his house telling his wife that he was going to do some work in the filed and would be returning soon. Though he went to the filed fairly early on that day, which was Saturday, he did not return for a long time though he had told his wife that he would return by about 10 a.m. Sindhu got anxious and then made inquiries with accused No. 3 who told her that her husband had on the previous day taken some amount from him for going out of the village. Accused No. 3 told her that on that day, namely, Saturday he had not seen her husband. Sindhu waited till next day morning and on that day she went to Barsi to make inquiries with her uncle one Krishna Mandlik. She was informed that her husband had not gone there. After she was informed that her husband had not gone there, she returned to the village and on Monday the 27th of May, 1974 she went to a village called Washi where also Jayaram was not to be found. She returned to her place on Tuesday. Thus she continued to search for her husband till 31st of May, 1974 on which day one Baliram is to have disclosed her that there was some fight in the filed on the previous Saturday in which the accused and Jayaram were involved. This information had been secured Baliram from one Babu Narayan Kharage who is the servant of Nana Jamale. Further inquiries were made and Sindhu suspecting that some great calamity had befallen on her husband made an application which is at Exhibit 23 to the Police Head Constable of Tadavale outpost. On this application Police Head Constable Kulkarni made some inquiries and after recording the statements of Babu Kharge, Ramkisan Jayaram Mali, Baliram Jamale, Vishnu Jamale and some others thought that it was a case of cognizable offence and took accused Nos. 1 and 2 to Pangari Police Station on 3rd of June, 1974 and produced them before the P.S.I.

3. The investigation was partly conducted by Police Jamadar Kisan Ganpat Jadhav, P.W. 18, who formally arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 on 4th of June, 1974. Then on the same day accused No. 1 is said to have made a statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act pursuant to which the dead body of Jayaram was discovered in the filed called Takke. The body was exhumed in the presence of the Tahsildar of Barsi and Dr. Deshpande conducted the post-mortem examination on the site. Thereafter accused Nos. 1 and 2 are said to have made a joint statement before the police and the panchas that they had concealed the axe and the pickaxe by burning the same in the mud in the streamlet Man which runs through the field of this village. Pursuant to this statement both accused Nos. 1 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis