Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Supreme Court on recovery of material objects via Section 27 of the Evidence Act for cases registered by different police stations:
Recovery and admissibility under Section 27: The Court emphasizes that recovery of material objects based on statements made by accused under Section 27 is permissible only if the recovery is conducted in accordance with the procedure, including the presence of independent witnesses and proper documentation, and the recovery must be linked to the information provided by the accused. The recovery can occur en-route to the police station or at the station, but the process must strictly follow legal standards to be admissible ["KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["HEMANTH KUMAR @ HEMANTH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"], ["Mohd. Shakeel VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Recovery from different police stations: The Court has clarified that recovery of material objects can be valid even when the case is registered at a different police station than where the recovery occurs, provided the recovery is conducted properly and the chain of evidence is maintained. The key point is the procedural correctness and the link to the information given by the accused, not necessarily the police station where the case is registered ["KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Mohd. Shakeel VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Judgments citing recovery across police stations: The Supreme Court in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh (para 52-53) has held that recovery under Section 27 is doubtful if the recovery is not properly documented or if the accused was in police custody, and stressed that the recovery must be in accordance with the law, including the presence of independent witnesses ["HEMANTH KUMAR @ HEMANTH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
Legal requirements for recovery under Section 27: The Court has consistently held that recovery must be supported by proper panchnama, independent witnesses, and must be directly connected to the information given by the accused. Recovery made en-route to the police station or at different stations can be admissible if these conditions are met, but any deviation renders the evidence doubtful or inadmissible ["KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["HEMANTH KUMAR @ HEMANTH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"], ["Mohd. Shakeel VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion: The Supreme Court has clarified that recovery of material objects under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be valid even if the case is registered at a different police station than where the recovery is effected, provided the recovery process adheres strictly to legal procedures, including the presence of independent witnesses and proper documentation. The key is the procedural integrity and the link between the information given and the recovery, not solely the location of the registration. This ensures that evidence obtained through such recovery remains admissible and reliable ["KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["HEMANTH KUMAR @ HEMANTH vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
In criminal investigations, the recovery of material objects plays a pivotal role in establishing guilt. But what happens when such recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are conducted by a police station different from the one where the case is registered? This question often arises in complex cases involving multiple jurisdictions. A common query is: In which judgement did the Supreme Court say that recovery of material objects as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be possible for a case which is registered by another police station?
The Supreme Court has addressed this through key principles emphasizing strict conditions for admissibility. While no single judgment exclusively mandates this across all scenarios, rulings like those in Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 0 Supreme(Ori) 209 and State of Rajasthan VS Jhabar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(Raj) 711 clarify that such recoveries remain possible provided they meet rigorous evidentiary standards. This blog explores these judgments, conditions, and broader implications, drawing from legal precedents.
Section 27 carves out an exception to the general inadmissibility of confessions to police (Sections 25 and 26). It states that facts discovered in consequence of information received from an accused in police custody are relevant. However, only the portion of the information that distinctly relates to the discovered fact is admissible. Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 0 Supreme(Ori) 209
Key requirements include:- Information must be given while the accused is in police custody.- It must lead to the discovery of a fact previously unknown to the police.- A direct nexus between the information and discovery must be proven.
The Supreme Court stresses that recoveries from open, accessible places without this link lack credibility. State of Rajasthan VS Jhabar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(Raj) 711
In Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 0 Supreme(Ori) 209, the Court held: The discovery of material objects under Section 27 is valid only when it results directly from information given by the accused while in police custody. The prosecution must establish a close, direct connection between the information, the discovery, and the use of the object in the commission of the offence.
Recovery memos prepared at police stations or open spaces, without these conditions, weaken evidentiary value. The Court warns against fabricated memos, underscoring procedural integrity.
Similarly, State of Rajasthan VS Jhabar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(Raj) 711 dealt with recoveries of cartridges, rifle, and revolver from an open place. The Court noted: the cartridges, rifle, and revolver were recovered from an open place accessible to all, and the police recovered these articles without the accused pointing them out. This rendered the information inadmissible.
The Supreme Court indicates that recoveries by a different police station do not inherently invalidate evidence under Section 27. However, the same stringent criteria apply: the information from custody must directly lead to discovery, with credible proof of the link. Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 0 Supreme(Ori) 209
In multi-jurisdictional cases, courts scrutinize whether the investigating agency coordinated properly. Mere recovery from another station's jurisdiction, without establishing the accused's custodial information as the direct cause, diminishes probative value. This aligns with the principle that Section 27 protects against planted evidence.
Other precedents reinforce these standards, particularly in NDPS and serious crime contexts.
In an NDPS case Aladdin VS State of Rajasthan - 2016 Supreme(Raj) 41, the SHO's testimony lacked details of Section 27 information: the SHO Bharat Kumar in his testimony did not give any details of the information given by Gopal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He simply exhibited the information under Section 27... This led to discarded prosecution evidence on seizure of 580 kgs of contraband, resulting in acquittal.
Manohar Lal S/o Shri Krishna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1880 highlighted breaches: Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording the evidence... is that of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The court acquitted due to no nexus between the appellant and seized contraband.
Bail applications often invoke Section 27 limitations. In Phundreimayum Yas Khan VS State (GNCT of Delhi) - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2293, reliance on co-accused disclosures failed without corroboration: The relevance of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act... Jain has placed a strong reliance on Section 27... Bail was granted absent recovery from the applicant.
Circumstantial evidence cases like Ashoke Sharma VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 889 challenge misapplication: the learned Trial Judge has misapplied the provisions of Section 27... in relation to the materials seized by the police. Recoveries must form a complete chain.
Even in kidnapping-murder appeals Ashoke Sharma VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 889, the Court upheld convictions only where leading statements directly yielded recoveries, but stressed: Circumstantial evidence must establish complete chain leading to guilt; mere recovery insufficient.
In Lakshmanan VS State through The Inspector of Police - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 4229, mere recovery was deemed insufficient: mere recovery of material objects made under Section 27... would not be sufficient to invite conviction. Acquittal followed lack of prior association evidence.
These cases illustrate that procedural lapses or weak links universally undermine Section 27 evidence, regardless of police station.
For Section 27 recoveries to hold, especially across stations:- Custody Confirmation: Accused must be in police custody when providing information. Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 0 Supreme(Ori) 209- Specificity: Information must distinctly relate to the fact discovered.- Credible Link: Prosecution proves no prior police knowledge; witness testimony corroborates.- Procedural Safeguards: Meticulous recovery memos, avoiding open-space pitfalls. State of Rajasthan VS Jhabar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(Raj) 711
Exceptions:- Open spaces don't auto-invalidate if direct link proven. State of Rajasthan VS Jhabar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(Raj) 711- Co-accused statements limited to maker's recovery. Mahimananda Mishra VS State of Orissa - 2017 Supreme(Ori) 689
Pitfalls include vague testimonies Biju, Karuvannur Desom VS State of Kerala - 2017 Supreme(Ker) 1008: A mere statement made by the Police, that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused, cannot be taken into account.
Supreme Court judgments like Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen VS State of Rajasthan - 2011 0 Supreme(Ori) 209 and State of Rajasthan VS Jhabar Singh - 1991 0 Supreme(Raj) 711 affirm that Section 27 recoveries can apply to cases registered by another police station, but only with unassailable proof of direct custodial linkage. Weaknesses in open recoveries or procedures often lead to acquittals, as seen in NDPS and IPC cases.
Key Takeaways:- Direct nexus is paramount.- Procedural integrity trumps jurisdictional boundaries.- Mere recovery seldom suffices alone.
This post provides general insights based on cited judgments and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
#Section27EvidenceAct #SupremeCourtJudgment #CriminalLawIndia
In Muhammed Yousaf’s case (supra), it has been categorically held by this Court that no inference can be drawn against the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only based on the recovery of material object pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused to the Police Officer. ... We shall also remind ourselves that Section 27 is only an exception to the general rule under #HL_STAR....
How recovery must be effected under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (for short, 'Evidence Act'), is expounded by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 56 of the judgment in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. ... Reading of the above paragraph shows that to effect recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Investig....
With regard to the case under the Arms Act under Section 25/27 vis-a-vis Shakeel, case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 611 of 2007. With regard to the accused Kaleem a case under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act was registered as Sessions Trial No. 612 of 2007. 7. ... For the recovered country made pistol, Case Crime No. 1012 of 2007 under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act#....
As noted above, the SHO Bharat Kumar in his testimony did not give any details of the information given by Gopal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He simply exhibited the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as Ex.P37 and thereafter, prepared the spot memo Ex.P38 dated 27.7.2004. ... He urged that a confessional information given by an accused to a Police Officer under Section #HL_....
The court analyzed the adherence to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and whether crucial evidence connected the appellant to ... Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording the evidence of the above witnesses is that of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. ... Under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. ... or a recovery or another fact to corrob....
NDPS Act - Regular Bail - Section 8(C)/29 - Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu - Section 67 - Section 25 of the Evidence Act - Section ... Jain has placed a strong reliance on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as a coordinate judgement of this Court titled as "Amit Ranjan v. ... In the present case, I am to see the following: 21.1. The relevance of section 27 of the Indian Evidence #H....
In the present case, I am to see the following: 21.1 The relevance of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act a. As per the judgement of Amit Ranjan v. ... Jain has placed a strong reliance on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as a coordinate judgement of this Court titled as “Amit Ranjan v. ... Thus the statement of the aforesaid accused Mehboob and F....
Therefore, I find no reasons to agree with the contentions that the section 27 recovery would not be applicable as evidence against the appellant. ... The admissibility of the recovery allegedly made in terms of section 27 (1) of the Evidence Ordinance was not according to law. 4. The learned High Court Judge has failed to properly consider and evaluate the dock statement made by the appellant. ... Making submissions in relation to....
He has contended that, the learned Trial Judge has misapplied the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 in relation to the materials seized by the police. ... Prosecution has tendered such evidence under section 27 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. 94. ... He had stated that, the Investigating Officer of the present case came to the Ramba Police S....
The trial Court is directed to expunge the evidence recorded through PW-5 except to the extent, which leads to recovery of the material objects, and the trial Court can proceed further in the matter.” 11. ... Section 27 (3) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. ... The prosecution asserted that MO.6 – Mobile Phone was discovered in the confession statement of accused No. 1, which is admissible as per Section#HL_E....
Sibbia (supra) also stated that courts can fashion appropriate conditions governing bail, as well. Given that there is no formal method prescribed by Section 46 of the Code if recovery is made during a statement (to the police) and pursuant to the accused volunteering the fact, it would be a case of recovery during “deemed arrest” (Para 19 of Sibbia). One condition can be that if the police make out a case of likely recovery of objects or discovery of facts under Section 27 (of the Evidence Act, 1872), the accused may be taken into custody.
In the following judgments, (which are referred to by the Trial Court), the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court has explained the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in relation to alleged discovery./recovery. The State of Maharashtra,1995 AIR SC 483, the Supreme Court observed that the statement made by accused during the police custody involving him in the crime is not admissible, incriminating statement made by accused to police officer is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
A mere statement made by the Police, that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused, cannot be taken into account as a piece of evidence against the accused. It is argued that even if there is a strong suspicion about the accused, that will not be sufficient to hold him guilty of the offences. Further, the material objects alleged to have been recovered, is not in accordance with the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the evidence is lacking to come to a conclusion regarding the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to the re....
Therefore, the statement of co-accused Rakesh Choubey is relevant to the recovery of incriminating material but not the rest of the statement. Apart from it, this statement cannot be utilized against any person except the maker as per the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time. In view of the decision of the Privy Council and the Hon’ble Apex Court, the statement as to recovery of material can only be considered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The prosecution is expected to adduce some evidence apart from alleged recovery made under the said Section. In Wakkar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 306, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a case like this, mere recovery of material objects made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not be sufficient to invite conviction and sentence against particular accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
