Supreme Court: Accused’s Statement Inadmissible If Discovery Already Made

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal against the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court ruled that the evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused could not be deemed reliable considering the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the Court held that the part of the accused’s statement indicating the location of the dead bodies was not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Case Background: The appellant, accused No. 2, was convicted along with accused No. 1 for offenses under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, resulting in life imprisonment. The appeal challenged this conviction.

Contentions: The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case lacked independent witness testimony, and the recovery of the weapon at the accused’s instance was not reliable evidence. The prosecution, however, asserted the validity of the weapon’s recovery.

Court’s Observations and Decision: The Court noted the absence of circumstantial evidence in the prosecution’s case and highlighted the reliance solely on alleged eyewitness accounts. Given the lack of support from key witnesses, the evidence of the weapon’s recovery at the accused’s instance was deemed unreliable.

Moreover, the Court clarified that the portion of the accused’s statement regarding the location of the dead bodies was not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section allows for the admissibility of statements leading to discoveries only if the discovery is made as a consequence of the information provided.

Conclusion: In light of the aforementioned observations and considerations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the conviction of the accused. This ruling emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence and adherence to legal provisions governing the admissibility of statements in criminal proceedings.

[Case Title: Krishan v State of Haryana Coram: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 52 SC Advocate for the Appellant: Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal Advocate for the Respondents: Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan]

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!