Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 8, 27 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Facts
The Appellant was convicted for the murder of his six-year-old stepdaughter. Following a domestic quarrel, the child went missing. Based on the accused’s alleged disclosure statement, bone remnants and a skull were recovered from a field and canal respectively
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 8, 27 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issues raised
- Whether the disclosure statement under Section 27 was admissible when the accused was not in police custody
- Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that the accused was already in judicial custody on the date the child went missing for an assault case, making the “last seen” theory untenable. The Section 27 statement was recorded when the accused was not in police custody, rendering it inadmissible. On the other hand, Respondent argued that recovery of remains at the accused’s instance, DNA matching, and the accused’s failure to explain his knowledge of the recovery location established guilt.
Judgement
The Court held that the last seen theory failed due to the accused’s prior incarceration. The Section 27 disclosure was inadmissible as the accused was not in custody, though admissible under Section 8 as mere conduct. The chain of circumstances was incomplete, warranting the benefit of doubt.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
