Criminal Law : Murder - Accused Convicted by HC Secures Acquittal from Supreme Court

Criminal Law : Murder - Accused Convicted by HC Secures Acquittal from Supreme Court

In a recent Judgment, issues related to criminal law have been discussed. Offence alleged was related to murder.

As per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the confession given in the Police custody, cannot be proved against a person accused of an offence unless it is given in the immediate presence of the Magistrate. However, Section 27 deals with how much of the information as received from the accused, in Police custody may be proved.

On a glance of the language of the said section, which starts with the expression “provided that”, it is apparent that this Section is an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26. The language further indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person who is in custody of the Police in connection of an offence, it must relate distinctly to the fact so discovered. For relevancy, the “facts thereby discovered” is preceded with the words “so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly”. Special emphasis must be given to the word ‘distinctly’. The word “distinctly” has its own importance which is a derivative of the word ‘distinct’.

Therefore, “distinctly”, as used in Section 27 of IEA, 1872, is meant to exclude certain language and to limit and confine the information which may be proved within definite limits and not necessarily to include everything which may relate to that information. The said word “distinctly” indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably, apparently, used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information. Therefore, only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’.

In this case, it was held that prosecution has not established that the said recovery distinctly relates to the commission of the offence or that the weapon so recovered was the same which was used to commit murder so as to constitute a relevant fact distinctively related to the disclosure. The recovery was effected from an iron box lying in a room accessible to other family members, wherein various household articles were kept, which were neither seized nor proved examining any independent witness from neighborhood.

The chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage, and deposit of the material exhibits thus remains incomplete and was not duly proved. Though the FSL report indicates that the pistol and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the body of the deceased, such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence. 

For more details refer Govind v. State of Haryana [2025] GCtR 1699 (SC).