Home > Recent Judgements > SECTION 27 EVIDENCE ACT | DISCLOSURE OUTSIDE POLICE CUSTODY NOT ADMISSIBLE – SUPREME COURT ACQUITS ACCUSED IN ROHIT JANGDE V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Feb 18- 2026
SECTION 27 EVIDENCE ACT | DISCLOSURE OUTSIDE POLICE CUSTODY NOT ADMISSIBLE – SUPREME COURT ACQUITS ACCUSED IN ROHIT JANGDE V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
In a significant reaffirmation of the evidentiary safeguards governing criminal trials, the Supreme Court recently clarified the scope and applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court held that a disclosure statement leading to recovery of material evidence is admissible only when made while the accused is in police custody. Any such disclosure made outside custody falls outside Section 27 and cannot be used to sustain conviction.
The ruling underscores the Court’s continued insistence on strict procedural compliance, evidentiary reliability, and benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence.
Factual Background
The case concerned the alleged murder of a six-year-old child by her stepfather.
The prosecution relied substantially on:
- A disclosure statement allegedly made by the accused that led to recovery of bone remnants of the deceased.
- DNA evidence confirming the remains belonged to the child.
However, the timeline revealed a critical inconsistency:
- The memorandum under Section 27 was recorded at 10:30 a.m. on 13 October 2018.
- The arrest memo showed the accused was formally arrested only at 10:00 p.m. the same day.
Thus, at the time of making the disclosure, the accused was not in police custody.
Core Legal Issue
“Whether a disclosure statement leading to discovery of facts is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act when the accused was not in police custody at the time of making the statement.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Custody is a Mandatory Requirement Under Section 27
The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran emphasized that:
Section 27 applies only to information received from a person “in the custody of a police officer.”
Because the accused was not in custody when the disclosure was recorded, the statement:
- Could not be admitted under Section 27, and
- The recovery based on it lost evidentiary value for proving guilt.
Reliance on Precedent
The Court referred to Durlav Namasudra v. Emperor (1931), which held:
- Information from a person not in police custody cannot fall within Section 27.
- Meaning of “Custody” – Not Limited to Formal Arrest
The Court acknowledged earlier jurisprudence, particularly Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which clarifies:
- Custody does not necessarily mean formal arrest.
- It may include surveillance, restraint, or control by police.
However, in this case:
- No material showed restraint or surveillance,
- Therefore, custody requirement remained unfulfilled.
- Limited Admissibility Under Section 8 of the Evidence Act
The Court relied on State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) to clarify:
- Even if inadmissible under Section 27,
- The accused’s knowledge leading to recovery may be relevant as conduct under Section 8.
But the Court cautioned:
- Such evidence is intrinsically weak.
- Cannot by itself sustain conviction.
- Requires strong corroboration.
Evaluation of Evidence by the Court
DNA Evidence Insufficient to Prove Guilt
Although DNA confirmed the remains were of the child:
- It did not establish the accused’s involvement.
- No definite time of death could be determined.
- Corpus delicti was not conclusively recovered.
Suspicious Delay in Reporting Missing Child
The Court noted:
- A long unexplained delay in reporting the child missing.
- Family knew the child was last seen with the accused, yet:
- No immediate complaint,
- No questioning of the accused,
- FIR lodged after his release from custody.
These circumstances tilted the balance toward reasonable doubt.
Final Holding
The Supreme Court concluded:
- Section 27 disclosure inadmissible due to absence of custody.
- Section 8 conduct evidence too weak to sustain conviction.
- Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the Court:
→ Allowed the appeal
→ Set aside conviction
→ Acquitted the accused giving benefit of doubt
Observations on Investigation and Advocacy
Despite acquittal, the Court made notable remarks:
- Praised the State Counsel’s preparation and advocacy.
- Criticized deficiencies in police investigation, observing that:
“Had the investigation been as strong as the prosecution’s arguments, the mystery surrounding the child’s death might have been resolved.”
The Court also appreciated the defence counsel’s effective challenge exposing investigative lapses.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
- Reaffirmation of Safeguards Against Coerced or Unreliable Evidence
The ruling protects accused persons from:
- Improperly obtained disclosures,
- Manufactured recoveries,
- Convictions based on weak circumstantial links.
- Strict Interpretation of Section 27
Key takeaway:
Custody at the time of disclosure is indispensable.
Without custody:
- Discovery evidence loses admissibility under Section 27.
- Section 8 Evidence Cannot Replace Proof of Guilt
Conduct evidence:
- Only corroborative,
- Never sufficient alone for conviction.
- Reinforcement of “Benefit of Doubt” Doctrine
Where:
- Investigation is flawed,
- Evidence incomplete,
- Timeline uncertain,
→ Acquittal becomes legally inevitable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh is a critical reaffirmation of evidentiary discipline in criminal law.
By insisting that Section 27 disclosures must be made in police custody and warning against reliance on weak conduct evidence, the Court reinforced:
- Fair trial guarantees,
- High burden of proof in criminal cases, and
- Judicial vigilance against investigative lapses.
The judgment stands as an important precedent ensuring that liberty cannot be curtailed on doubtful or procedurally defective evidence.