District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Discovery of Fact Must Distinctly Relate to the Accused’s Information To Admissible U/ S 27 Evidence Act: Supreme Court in Murder Case Acquittal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, acquitted the appellants in the criminal appeal nos. 3869 of 2023 and 2740 of 2023, overturning their earlier conviction in a murder case.

The apex court’s decision hinged on the interpretation and application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, focusing on whether the recovered evidence distinctly related to the information provided by the accused.

The case involved the conviction of the appellants for murder based on circumstantial evidence and memorandum statements under Section 27, which led to the discovery of a body. The judgment scrutinized the link between these statements and the actual discovery of the body.

Witness Testimony Inconsistencies: The Court highlighted discrepancies in the testimonies regarding the body’s discovery, suggesting knowledge of the murder prior to the statements recorded under Section 27.

Application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act: The judgment underscored the inadequacy of evidence connecting the discovery of the body directly to the appellants’ information, casting doubt on the prosecution’s reliance on Section 27.

Necessity for a Complete Chain of Circumstances: Emphasizing the need for an unbroken chain of circumstances, the Court found the prosecution failed to establish a sequence leading conclusively to the appellants’ guilt.

Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the High Court and Trial Court, acquitting the appellants. The Court stressed the critical nature of linking the discovery of a fact directly and distinctly to the information provided by the accused in cases built on circumstantial evidence.

Date of Decision: April 10, 2024.

Ravishankar Tandon vs. State of Chhattisgarh,

 

Latest Legal News