Supreme Court Questions the Reliability of Weapon Recovery from an Open, Accessible Location under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
Last Updated on November 8, 2023 by News Desk
Issue: The Supreme Court of India has addressed the question of whether, pursuant Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of incriminating materials from public and accessible areas may be relied on exclusively in determining the guilt of accused people.
Facts of the Case: The case featured an appeal from the Karnataka High Court, which overturned the trial court’s acquittal and convicted six appellants for offenses according to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellents were sentenced to four years in jail, while the remainder were acquitted. The major issue was the dependability of proof derived from the restitution of things in public locations.
Arguments Presented by Parties: The appellants contended that the retrieval of incriminating artefacts from public locations should not be relied on alone to prove their guilt. They maintained that for evidence based on fact discovery to be admissible, the standards established in Section 27 of the Evidence Act have to be scrupulously followed. They relied on past decisions, such as Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Jaikam Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to support their argument.
Reasoning of the Judgment: The Supreme Court initially emphasized the requirements for Section 27 of the Evidence Act to be applicable. The uncovering of a fact must be the result of knowledge from an individual accused of an offense, the discovery should be removed, and the suspect must be in custody of the police at the time the information is received. The Court emphasized that only data “distinctly connected with the fact found” is acceptable under Section 27. This term refers to the portion of the accused’s information that was the primary and prompt reason for the finding.
Judgement: The Supreme Court ruled that recovering incriminating artifacts from public locations could not be used simply to prove the innocence of the accused. The Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to exclude this evidence since the recoveries were obtained in public locations or regions where other people lived. The Court stated that things like sticks, if bamboo or another, are ubiquitous in rural life, and their finding in public spaces cannot be utilized as solid evidence to indict the defendants.
Case Title: Manjunath v. State of Karnataka
Written By: Nikita Shankar @nikitaashankar
