Acquittal in Minor’s Murder Case; SC Rules on Inadmissibility of Section 27 Recovery

The Supreme Court of India acquits the stepfather in minor's murder case where the prosecution relied primarity on the recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) and rules on its inadmissibility if the accused is not in custody at the time of such an statement.

Background: The matter is stemmed from a tragic disappearance and alleged murder of a six-year-old girl in the year 2018. The appellant, who is a child's stepfather, lived in a household with two wives. Following a physical altercation, the second wife (the victim's biological mother) fled to her parent's home and was hospitalized. When the maternal grandmother arrived to collect the children, she was informed that the appellant had taken the younger girl. Despite the child being missing, no complaint was lodged for several days.

When the compalint was filed after several days, the prosecution rested its case on the "last seen together" theory, and were able to recover charred bone remnants and a skull based on the appellant's information. Upon DNA profiling, it matches with the biological parents. The Trial Court convicted the appellant/stepfather for murder and the High Court upheld the same.

When the appeal is made before the Supreme Court, the Apex Court found the entire prosecution story riddled with "conjectures" and procedural "interpolations".

Upon critically analyzing the evidentiary standards required in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court finds fault and noted the serious discrepancies regarding the timing of the appellant's arrest. While the prosecution claimed the child went missing on October 6, 2018, records showed the appellant was already in police custody at that time for the assault on his wife.

The Apex Court also noted clear interpolations in the arrest and surrender memos, suggesting the police manipulated dates to fit their narrative. Consequently, the "last seen" link was found to be fundamentally broken.

On the inadmissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Apex Court observed that the appellant's statement was recorded on the morning of October 13, yet his formal arrest was recorded much later that night.

Relying on its earlier judgment in case of **Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs The State of Maharashtra, 1969 the Apex Court held that Since Section 27 strictly applies only to information received from a person already in police custody, the statement was ruled inadmissible under that provision.

Differentiating the Section 8 and Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court clarified that while the act of the accused leading the police to the remains could be admitted as "conduct" under Section 8, it is a "weak piece of evidence". Such conduct can only offer corroboration and is insufficient, by itself, to sustain a conviction without a complete chain of other incriminating circumstances.

Noting the inconsistancies with DNA profiles, where the DNA only matched the vertebrae and teeth found in a canal, and not the skull and charred remains found in a field, the Apex Court held that this discrepancy, combined with the police's failure to identify a green saree found with the remains, further weakened the link to the appellant.

The Apex Court also noted that the long gap between the disappearance and the FIR, coupled with the fact that the family and police knew the child was supposedly with the appellant but failed to question him immediately, tilted the scales in favor of an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt.

With these fatal procedural lapses, including interpolated arrest memos and the failure of the "last seen together" theory, ultimately granting the accused the benefit of doubt, the Apex Court set aside the conviction by giving the accused the benefit of doubt, and further observed that the investigation was so poorly handled that it left the child's death shrouded in mystery while nearly resulting in a wrongful incarceration.

Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.