Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Pal Singh, AOR, Mr. Seemab Qayyum, Adv., Ms. Anvita Aprajita, Adv., Mr. Madhavendra Singh, Adv., Mr. Mohan Singh Bais, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv., Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.

Ratio Decidendi on Section 27 of the Evidence Act:

Mere discovery of an article or fact at the instance of the accused cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon or article, as the accused could have derived knowledge of its existence at that place through some other source. (!) (!) (!) (!)

For evidence under Section 27 to be admissible and reliable, the investigating officer must depose to the exact words attributed to the accused as the statement made by him, and the contents of the panchnama must also be proved; in the absence of these, reliance on the circumstance of discovery is not justified. (!) (!) (!) (!)

The panchnama process under Section 27 requires that, upon the accused in custody making a voluntary statement, two independent witnesses be called to the police station where the exact statement is recorded in the first part of the panchnama; only thereafter should the police party, accused, and witnesses proceed to the place of discovery, which forms the second part. (!)

The information given by the accused must distinctly relate to the fact discovered, embracing the place from which the object is produced and the accused's knowledge thereof; vague statements, such as merely offering to show the weapon used, do not establish involvement in concealment or use. (!) (!) (!)