Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation

Supreme Court of India, in a major ruling on February 24, 2025, exposed serious contradictions in the prosecution’s claim that the accused led the police to the victim’s body. The Court, while acquitting Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan, ruled that the prosecution's reliance on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows certain disclosures made in police custody to be admissible, was completely misplaced.

Pointing to the fact that a key prosecution witness (PW-6) categorically stated that the accused was in jail when the body was discovered, the Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the credibility of the police investigation, stating:

"When a prosecution witness himself states that the accused was in jail at the time of discovery, the requirement of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not met. This directly contradicts the claim that the accused led the police to the body."

The ruling not only shattered the reliability of the prosecution’s case but also emphasized the need for strict adherence to the principles governing admissibility of custodial disclosures in criminal trials.

Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The Law and the Prosecution’s Failure to Follow It

The prosecution attempted to invoke Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides that when an accused person, while in police custody, gives information that leads to the discovery of a fact—such as a dead body or a weapon—only that portion of the information directly related to the discovery is admissible in evidence.

However, the Supreme Court found the prosecution’s claim to be baseless, as it was contradicted by the testimony of PW-6, the scribe of the FIR, who admitted that the accused was already in jail at the time of the discovery.

Clarifying the legal requirement, the Supreme Court observed: "For Section 27 to apply, the accused must have given information that directly leads to a discovery. If the accused was in jail when the body was found, the prosecution cannot argue that his statement resulted in the discovery. Such a claim falls flat in the face of its own witness testimony."

Flawed Investigation and Contradictions in Witness Testimonies

The Supreme Court took a serious view of the contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, noting that different witnesses gave conflicting versions of how the body was found. While some claimed the accused pointed out the location, others confirmed he was not present at the time of discovery.

Highlighting the fundamental flaw in the prosecution’s case, the Court stated: "If the prosecution's own witness confirms that the accused was in jail when the body was recovered, the entire claim of ‘discovery based on the accused’s disclosure’ collapses. The rule of evidence does not permit a conviction based on such self-contradictory claims."

Lack of Forensic Corroboration – A Major Lapse by the Police

In addition to the false claim of discovery, the Supreme Court heavily criticized the police for failing to conduct a proper forensic investigation. The police allegedly recovered a bloodstained vest, which, if tested, could have either implicated or exonerated the accused. However, this critical piece of evidence was never sent for forensic examination.

Rebuking the prosecution for this lapse, the Court stated: "When forensic evidence that could establish guilt is not secured or examined, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The failure to conduct basic forensic testing raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation."

The Court emphasized that scientific evidence plays a crucial role in criminal trials, and the prosecution’s negligence in not conducting DNA or serological testing on the bloodstained vest amounted to suppression of material evidence.

Broken Chain of Circumstantial Evidence and the Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court made it clear that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain leading to only one conclusion—the guilt of the accused. Once the prosecution’s claims regarding discovery and forensic evidence were found to be unreliable, the entire chain of circumstantial evidence was broken, entitling the accused to an acquittal.

Summarizing its findings, the Court held: "The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused led to the discovery of the body. The alleged bloodstained vest was never sent for forensic testing. In light of these failures, the accused must be given the benefit of doubt. A conviction cannot be sustained on such a flawed foundation."

Acquitting the accused, the Court set aside the judgments of the Sessions Court and the Gauhati High Court, stating: "When an essential link in the chain of circumstances is broken, the remaining evidence cannot sustain a conviction. The accused is acquitted and shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in any other case."

A Stern Reminder on the Proper Application of Section 27

This ruling reiterates the strict evidentiary requirements for ‘discovery evidence’ under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Supreme Court has made it clear that:

• An accused’s disclosure leading to discovery must be independently corroborated, and false claims by the police cannot substitute real evidence.

• If a prosecution witness confirms that the accused was not present at the time of discovery, the entire claim of "leading to discovery" is rendered inadmissible.

• Forensic evidence must be secured and tested, and failure to do so weakens the prosecution’s case significantly.

• A conviction cannot stand when the prosecution’s key claims are self-contradictory and unsupported by independent evidence.

By exposing the contradictions in the prosecution’s case and reinforcing the correct legal standards for custodial disclosures, the Supreme Court has delivered a powerful precedent on the misuse of Section 27 and the critical role of forensic evidence in criminal trials.

Date of decision: 24/02/2025