Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court

"The reliability of a recovery effected under Section 27 of the Act of 1872 from a place ordinarily visible to others should be examined with care." Supreme Court, in a judgment dated October 1, 2026, held that recoveries of incriminating material under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from places that are open or accessible to the public demand a heightened standard of judicial scrutiny.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that while accessibility does not render a discovery inadmissible per se, the prosecution must establish that the spot was not ordinarily visible to the public to ensure the recovery's credibility.

Court Rejects Mechanical Reliance on Recoveries

The bench emphasized that the mere act of discovery cannot be used to bridge gaps in the prosecution's case when the chain of circumstances is otherwise incomplete. Dealing with a case of murder and sexual assault where the conviction rested solely on circumstantial evidence, the Court noted that the trial court and the High Court failed to account for the fact that the location of the recovery was frequently visited by the public for collecting fodder and grazing cattle.

Principle of Visibility in Section 27 Discovery

Referring to the precedent in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh, the Court clarified that the crucial question is whether the concealed place was ordinarily visible to others. If a location is frequented by the public and is not secluded, the sanctity of a Section 27 recovery is significantly diminished. The bench cautioned that such evidence must be assessed in conjunction with all other circumstances to avoid reliance on conjecture or suspicion.

Circumstantial Evidence Must Exclude Every Other Hypothesis

The Court underscored that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish a complete chain of events that points uniquely to the guilt of the accused. The bench reiterated the warning from Hanumant Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh that circumstantial evidence must be of a conclusive nature, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

Last Seen Theory Requires Proximity in Time

The bench further addressed the "last seen" theory, observing that it only becomes a potent piece of evidence when the time gap between the deceased being seen alive and the discovery of the body is minimal. In the present case, a long duration between the alleged disappearance and the recovery of skeletal remains precluded a reliable application of the last seen principle. The Court observed that in the absence of corroborative evidence, a long time gap makes it hazardous to fix liability solely on the basis of being the last person seen with the victim.

"The chain of evidence must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused."

DNA Evidence and Forensic Infirmities

Regarding the forensic material, the Court found the prosecution's case suffered from material discrepancies. The DNA report indicated that the recovered bones were of human male origin, whereas the victim was female, and these samples did not biologically match the blood samples of the victim's mother or sister. The Court ruled that such evidence, which contradicted the prosecution's version, could not be relied upon to support a conviction.

Statement Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Substitute Proof

The bench clarified that an accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence. The Court held that silence or a failure to provide a reasonable explanation for incriminating circumstances can only be an additional link in the chain, not a substitute for the failure of the prosecution to prove its case. Unless the prosecution's evidence is otherwise sufficient, the statement of the accused cannot be used to fill gaps in the trial.

Acquittal and Setting Aside of Conviction

Finding that the chain of circumstances was broken and that the evidence was woefully insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgment of the Sessions Court, as affirmed by the High Court, was quashed and set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2026