Evidence Act | Materials Handed Over By Accused During Police Check Can’t Be Termed Section 27 Recoveries : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that the recovery of incriminating articles already in an accused’s possession cannot be considered a “discovery” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The court emphasized that to qualify as a discovery, there must be prior concealment by the accused and the recovery must directly result from information provided by them.

Supreme Court Ruling on Evidence Act Section 27

Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling while hearing a criminal appeal concerning the sentencing of a convict found guilty of murder, gangrape, and offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with charges related to misappropriation of property.

The case originated from the disappearance and subsequent death of a woman who was last seen with her husband. The prosecution alleged that three individuals followed the woman, subjected her to sexual assault, and then killed her to destroy evidence. The trial court initially imposed the death penalty, which was later commuted to life imprisonment without remission by the High Court, based in part on alleged confessions and Section 27 recoveries.

While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court found fault with the High Court’s reliance on the recovery of items already in the accused’s possession at the time of arrest. The court determined that characterizing these recoveries as “discoveries” under Section 27 was legally unsound.

The court explained that because the articles were handed over to police during a routine check after arrest, there was no element of concealment necessary to invoke Section 27. The court stated, “Even as per the prosecution story, the same were handed over along with the confession, to PW15, which material objects were said to be in the possession of the accused at the time of arrest.”

The court further noted, “there was no concealment as such and in any event, on an arrest, when the material objects could have been seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by the police, the attempt to convert it as a recovery under Section 27 cannot at all accepted.”

The court cautioned against investigative practices that attempt to legitimize otherwise inadmissible confessions through contrived recoveries, stating that Section 27 should only apply to the concealment and recovery of items based on disclosed information, with the recovery occurring in the presence of witnesses.

As a result of this finding, the court modified the sentence from life imprisonment without remission to a sentence of 25 years without remission.

Cause Title: Shaik Shabuddin Versus State of Telangana

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1218

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kaushik Mukherjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.