Introduction:

In the landmark case of Nazir Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted two individuals convicted of a double homicide, citing the misuse of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bidhu Datta Guru, raised concerns over the improper use of the accused’s statements by the police, which had led to the conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. The court found that no incriminating items were recovered from the accused, thereby entitling them to acquittal due to insufficient evidence and incomplete chains of circumstantial proof.

Prosecution’s Argument:

The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence, relying heavily on statements made by the accused during police interrogation under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The police contended that these statements led to the recovery of items tied to the crime, thus establishing the accused’s guilt. They further cited an inquest report suggesting that the victims died due to homicidal strangulation, attempting to link the accused to the crime based on motive and conspiracy under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 302, 120B, and 201.

Defense’s Argument:

The defense contended that the accused’s statements made to the police were inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. They argued that only the portion of the statement leading to the discovery of physical evidence could be admissible under Section 27, but in this case, no incriminating objects were discovered. The defense also pointed out inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly the conflicting findings between the inquest report and the autopsy, which did not conclusively state the cause of death.

Court’s Judgement:

The court highlighted that under Section 27, only the part of a statement that leads to the discovery of physical evidence is admissible, while the use of confessions or incriminating statements made to the police is prohibited under Section 25. As no incriminating objects were recovered, the court ruled that the prosecution’s reliance on these statements was improper and inadmissible.

The bench expressed concerns about the gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence and the inconsistencies between the inquest and autopsy reports. It reiterated the principle that convictions based on circumstantial evidence must have a complete and unbroken chain of events. As the prosecution failed to provide such evidence, the court acquitted Nazir Khan and Patul @ Abdul Majid, underscoring the importance of adhering to the limitations of Section 27 in future cases.

This ruling emphasizes judicial vigilance in ensuring that evidence gathered under Section 27 remains credible, and it serves as a reminder to law enforcement about the careful use of such legal provisions in criminal trials.