Judgment Intelligence
Acquittal Set AsideState, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and Another
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1119-1120 of 1998
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 29 November 2000
- Bench
- Justices K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 100(4), 100(5), 161; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34, 302, 304 Part II, 364, 376, 377
Final Outcome
The High Court's judgment was set aside; the convictions under Sections 376 and 377 read with Section 34 IPC were restored with life imprisonment, and both respondents were also convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 without a separate sentence (para 26).
Key holdings
- The requirement of independent local witnesses under Section 100(5) CrPC applies to searches under Chapter VII, not to a recovery made on an accused's information under Section 27 (para 21).
- A recovery memo is not to be treated as tainted merely because no independent person attested it; the officer's evidence is weighed on its own worth (paras 22, 24).
- Courts should not start with the presumption that police records are untrustworthy; it is for the accused to show that the police evidence is unreliable (para 23).
- Unchallenged evidence of the autopsy surgeon cannot be discarded on the basis of a cursory initial entry by a doctor who was not examined (paras 10, 11).
Brief Facts
A Sessions Court convicted two men of kidnapping, rape, unnatural offence and murder of a four-year-old girl in September 1992, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment (paras 1, 2). The prosecution relied on evidence that the first accused took the child from a neighbour's care, that she was found lifeless at his house beside the second accused, and that her blood-stained undergarment was recovered from the second accused's house on his statement (paras 3, 13). The Delhi High Court acquitted both, discounting the recovery because no independent witness signed the seizure memo (paras 1, 19, 20). The State appealed (para 1).
Court's Findings
The autopsy surgeon's evidence was not even challenged in cross-examination and could not be doubted on the strength of an initial medico-legal entry by a doctor who was never examined (paras 10, 11). The discrepancies between the mother's and the neighbours' evidence were immaterial (para 18). The second accused's statement leading to the undergarment fell within Section 27 (para 19). The duty to call independent local inhabitants under Section 100(5) applies to searches under Chapter VII of the Code; recovery on an accused's information is different, as Sardar Ali indicates (para 21). Absent witnesses, the court weighs the investigating officer's evidence on its own worth (para 22). "We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust"; official acts are presumed regularly performed, and it is for the accused to show the police evidence unreliable (para 23). Murder was not made out, as the fatal head injury was caused during the assault, but the accused knew their acts were likely to cause death (para 25).
Legal Principle
Neither Section 27 of the Evidence Act nor Section 161 CrPC requires independent witnesses to sign a recovery memo. A recovery is not tainted for want of them; the court weighs the officer's evidence, starting without any presumption that police records are untrustworthy (paras 21-24).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. S. Sardar Ali 1983 SC 1225
Section 100 CrPC deals with searches and not seizures; when property is seized and not recovered during a search, sub-sections (4) and (5) cannot be complied with - used to distinguish recovery on an accused's information from a search under Chapter VII.
