Only Discovery, Not Confession, Is Admissible Under Section 27 – Police Cannot Rely on Statements That Accuse Themselves: Supreme Court

“No Test Identification, No Reliable Eyewitnesses, No Forensic Link – Conviction Can’t Rest on Shadows” - In a judgment reinforcing the foundational safeguards of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on October 7, 2025, set aside the conviction of three men—a father, his son, and his son-in-law—in a 2000 murder case from Uttarakhand, ruling that the High Court erred in overturning their acquittal by the Trial Court without concrete evidence identifying them as the assailants.

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale restored the trial court’s acquittal, holding that no reliable identification, contradictory and doubtful eyewitness testimony, and inadmissible confessional statements under Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act rendered the prosecution case too weak to sustain conviction under Section 302 IPC.

“The identity of the appellants as the persons involved in the offence has not been established either by any ocular evidence or from the recovery of the weapons of crime.”

“Chance Witnesses Must Inspire Confidence – When Presence is Doubtful, Conviction Cannot Stand”

The prosecution's case was based primarily on the testimony of the deceased’s father (PW-1) and a bystander (PW-2), both of whom claimed to have witnessed the murder. However, the Court found significant contradictions between their accounts and the deposition of PW-7, an independent householder who saw the assault but could not identify the assailants.

PW-1, the father of the deceased, claimed to have chased the accused to the house where his son was killed and allegedly saw the assault take place. But PW-7, the lady of the house, testified:

“The father of the deceased and other persons came there only after about half an hour of the departure of the assailants.”

The Court observed that this contradiction was fatal. Not only was PW-1’s presence at the scene improbable due to the distance from his actual route home, but his failure to submit his allegedly blood-stained clothes to the police, which he claimed were stained while hugging the deceased, further undermined his credibility.

“The story of hugging the deceased is concocted. His presence is doubtful and his testimony does not inspire confidence.”

As for PW-2, the Court noted that he only followed PW-1, staying 60-70 steps behind, and hence, could not have witnessed the murder either, especially since even PW-1 arrived only after the incident.

“No Identification Parade, No Naming by Eyewitness – Accused Cannot Be Convicted by Assumption”

The Court placed heavy reliance on the testimony of PW-7, who provided a natural, consistent and independent account of the incident. She clearly stated that she saw three unknown men attacking the victim with swords and a sharp weapon, but crucially added:

“I did not know the name of the accused persons.”

There was no test identification parade, nor was PW-7 ever asked by the police to identify the accused. The Court held:

“The police failed to get the appellants identified by her. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the persons who assaulted the deceased were actually the appellants.”

“Only the Act of Discovery Is Admissible – Not the Self-Incriminating Statements Made to Police”

One of the prosecution’s key pillars was the recovery of weapons, allegedly on the disclosure of the accused during custodial interrogation. The appellants purportedly confessed to hiding the weapons used in the offence and led police to their recovery.

However, invoking long-established principles under Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court held that:

“Only that part of the statement which leads the police to the recovery of the weapons is admissible, and not the part which alleges that the weapons recovered were actually the weapons of crime.”

Relying on the Privy Council decision in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor (1947) and reaffirmed in the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Manjunath v. State of Karnataka, the Court ruled: “The information that the crime was committed by the said weapons is inadmissible. It does not relate distinctly to the fact discovered, but rather amounts to a confession.”

Moreover, no forensic report linked the recovered weapons to the victim, and recovery from open areas like garages and sugarcane fields further weakened the evidentiary value.

“High Court Cannot Reverse Acquittal Without Finding Trial Court Findings Perverse” – Appellate Deference Restated

The Supreme Court strongly criticised the High Court’s approach in reversing the acquittal by the trial court without first finding the acquittal perverse or unsustainable.

The Bench reiterated: “It is safer and more appropriate to rely upon the findings of the Trial Court which has seen the demeanor of the witnesses… The High Court erred in reversing the finding without coming to the conclusion that the findings of the Trial Court were perverse.”

The Court emphasised that in cases of acquittal, especially involving serious charges like murder, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and interference must be guided by strict parameters.

Conviction Set Aside, Accused Acquitted on Benefit of Doubt

Having found the ocular evidence inconsistent and doubtful, the recovery inadmissible and forensically inconclusive, and the appellate interference unjustified, the Supreme Court concluded:

“It is doubtful whether the offence has been committed by the appellants. The conviction is accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of the alleged offence by granting them the benefit of doubt.”

The Court also ordered that the bail bonds of the accused be discharged, bringing an end to the prolonged litigation that had its origins in a June 2000 murder case.

Date of Decision: October 7, 2025