Whether joint disclosures by two accused are admissible in evidence?

 It was contended by the counsel for the accused No.3 that the

evidence regarding discovery of the dead body of Raman cannot be

used against accused No.3. Inasmuch as, when accused No.3 gave

his statement and recorded in the form of Memorandum under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Police already knew about the

spot where the dead body was thrown as it was disclosed by

accused No.2. It was contended that the statement made by

accused No.2 can be used only against accused No.2. This

argument has been negatived by the Trial Court after analyzing the

decisions which were brought to its notice, as can be discerned

from para 46 to para 53 of the judgment. The Trial Court found that

in the present case the accused Nos.2 and 3 made disclosure (about

the spot where dead body of Raman was thrown by them) one after

another in quick succession and that their statement came to be

recorded separately. The only thing that had happened was a joint

discovery made at the instance of both the accused Nos.2 and 3, on

proceeding to the spot along with the police. Section 27 of the

Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 of the Act. Section 25

mandates that no confession to a Police Officer while in police

custody shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

Section 27, however, provides that any fact deposed to and

discovered in consequence of information received from a person

accused of any offence, in the custody of a Police Officer, so much

of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as

relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. The

fact where the dead body of deceased Raman was disposed, was

disclosed by both the accused Nos.2 and 3 to the Investigating

Officer in the presence of SK Idris (PW 2) one after another on 12th

May 2003 at 3.05 hrs and 3.25 hrs. respectively. The discovery was

made only after accused Nos.2 and 3 were taken together by the

police to the spot in the neighbouring State (Madhya Pradesh),

where the recovery Panchnama was recorded bearing Exh.76A. In

other words, the disclosure of the relevant fact by accused No.3 to

the Investigating Officer preceeded the discovery of dead body from

the disclosed spot at the instance of both the accused Nos. 2 and 3.

It was not a case of recording of statement of accused No.3 after

discovery nor a joint statement of accused Nos.2 and 3, but

disclosure made by them separately in quick succession to the

Investigating Officer, preceding the discovery of the fact so stated.

The fact disclosed by them, therefore, and the discovery made at

their instance, was admissible against both the accused in terms of

Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

20. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu,20 this

Court has held that a joint disclosure or simultaneous disclosures,

per se, are not inadmissible under Section 27. A person accused

need not necessarily be a single person, but it could be a plurality

of the accused. The Court held that a joint or simultaneous

disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would

not have uttered informatory words in chorus. When two persons

in custody are interrogated separately and simultaneously and

both of them may furnish similar information leading to the

discovery of fact which was reduced into writing, such disclosure

by two or more persons in police custody do not go out of the

purview of Section 27 altogether. What is relevant is that

information given by one after the other without any break, almost

simultaneously, as in the present case and such information is

followed up by pointing out the material things by both of them

then there is no good reason to eschew such evidence from the

regime of Section 27. Whether that information is credible is a

matter of evaluation of evidence. The Courts below have accepted

the prosecution version in this behalf, being credible. Suffice it to

say that the disclosure made by Accused No. 3 about the relevant

fact, per se, is not inadmissible.

[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 467/2010

Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharashtra 

Dated:Dated: January 3, 2017.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI)1316 SC

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page