Section 27 Evidence Act | Conviction Cannot Rest Solely On Recoveries Pursuant To Custodial Disclosure Statements When Eyewitnesses Turn Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot do so solely on the basis of recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements recorded while the accused were in the police custody, as the disclosure statements in itself are not even admissible evidence." Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted three men sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and mob violence during the 2016 Jat reservation agitation, ruling that a criminal conviction cannot rest solely upon weapon recoveries made under custodial disclosure statements when all injured eyewitnesses turn hostile.

A division bench of Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Justice Puja Chopra held that relying exclusively on such evidence results in grave injustice, observing that "once the prosecution case is full of doubts then the benefit goes to the accused."

The case arose from FIR No. 116 dated February 23, 2016, registered at Police Station City Hansi, following an armed mob attack of 70 to 75 persons at Village Lalpura during the Jat reservation agitation, which left Krishan, Harphul, and complainant Ram Avtar injured and led to the gunshot death of one Mintu. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicted Daljeet @ Jaljeet, Pawan @ Pona, and Surender @ Jhanda under Sections 148, 302, 307, 397, 427, and 436 read with Section 149 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved by the conviction order dated January 24/30, 2019, the appellants moved the High Court while also seeking to lead additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC.

The primary question before the court was whether a conviction for riotous mob murder can be sustained solely upon ballistic matching of a weapon recovered through a custodial disclosure statement when all injured eyewitnesses fail to support the prosecution. The court was also called upon to determine whether the certified copy of a third-party disclosure statement could be admitted at the appellate stage under Section 391 CrPC to elucidate the genesis of the weapon recovery.

High Court Allows Additional Evidence In Defence At Appellate Stage Under Section 391 CrPC

Dealing first with CRM-21086-2024, the bench permitted the appellants to place on record the certified copy of a disclosure statement of one Balwant @ Ballu as Exhibit D-1 under Section 391 CrPC (now Section 432 BNSS). The bench noted that while the prosecution claimed appellant Daljeet handed over the firearm to Balwant, Balwant's own disclosure in a separate FIR showed he had purchased it from a third party for Rs. 8,000, a fact suppressed by the prosecution.

Section 391 CrPC Serves To Rectify Irregularities And Prevent Miscarriage Of Justice

Reiterating the Supreme Court's principles in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim (2011), the bench observed that additional evidence at the appellate stage is permissible in exceptional circumstances to cure irregularities and prevent wrongful conviction. The bench recalled the rule in Rambhau v. State of Maharashtra (2001) that Section 391 CrPC is akin to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, designed not to fill prosecution lacunae but to subserve the ends of justice without necessitating a de novo trial.

Hostility Of All Injured Eyewitnesses Completely Collapses Prosecution's Direct Evidence

On the merits of the appeal, the bench observed that the prosecution case originally hinged upon ocular testimony, yet every single injured witness resiled from their previous statements. Injured eyewitnesses Krishan (PW-1), Harphool Singh (PW-3), and complainant Ram Avtar (PW-4) were declared hostile after testifying in court that the appellants were not the miscreants who attacked them and that the police had procured their signatures on blank papers.

Absence Of Test Identification Parade Fatal In Mob Attack Involving Dozens Of Unidentified Persons

The High Court emphasized that the attack was executed by a mob of 70 to 75 individuals, yet the investigating agency conducted no Test Identification Parade to rule out false implication. The bench observed that it was highly improbable that out of an unruly mob of dozens, only the appellants could be singled out, especially when the injured witnesses expressly exonerated them in the witness box.

"Relying upon such evidences alone would result in grave injustice particularly when the same are full of serious doubts."

Exorbitant Delay In Introducing Weapon Recovery Renders Supplementary Chargesheet Suspect

The division bench took strong exception to the police transferring the alleged weapon of offence from FIR No. 337 of 2016 into the present trial after an unexplained delay of more than two years. The bench noted that the supplementary challan was brought only after the recording of statements under Section 313 CrPC, strongly indicating an afterthought by the investigating agency once it became apparent that the eye-witnesses would not support the prosecution case.

Custodial Disclosures Under Section 27 Evidence Act Cannot Bridge Evidentiary Void

The bench underscored that disclosure statements recorded while an accused is in police custody do not constitute substantive evidence capable of sustaining a conviction on their own. Relying on settled law including Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra, and Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court held that forensic matching of a belatedly produced country-made pistol cannot compensate for the complete absence of credible ocular evidence.

Acquittal In Originating FIRs Further Shatters Credibility Of Incriminating Recoveries

The court further noted that weapons attributed to appellants Pawan @ Pona and Surender @ Jhanda were allegedly seized in separate cases under the Arms Act, in both of which the accused had already been acquitted. Because the chain of custody was compromised by unsealed parcels and the ocular foundation collapsed, the bench held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, entitling the appellants to the benefit of doubt.

The High Court accordingly allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, and acquitted all three appellants of all charges. The judgment reaffirms that Section 27 recovery memos obtained in custody cannot substitute for substantive proof when direct ocular evidence completely fails.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2026