Section 27 Evidence Act: No “Rediscovery” of Facts; SC Acquits Accused, Says Last-Seen Theory Alone Insufficient

April 27, 2026 : The Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction of two accused in a murder case, holding that under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a fact once discovered at the instance of one accused cannot be rediscovered through identical or subsequent disclosures by co-accused. The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan clarified that Section 27 permits admissibility only where the information distinctly leads to a new discovery. Repetition of an already known fact does not satisfy this requirement and is therefore inadmissible.

The Court emphasised that where the police are already in possession of the relevant fact, any subsequent disclosure does not result in a fresh discovery. It rejected the prosecution’s reliance on “joint discovery”, noting that identical statements by multiple accused cannot be used to artificially strengthen the evidentiary value of recovery.

On facts, the prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with the principal accused, abducted and murdered a woman over a financial dispute and later burnt her body in a forest. The case rested primarily on a “last seen together” witness and recovery of skeletal remains and ornaments based on alleged joint disclosures. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302, 364, 404, and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, and the Karnataka High Court affirmed the conviction.

The Supreme Court found that the principal accused had already disclosed the relevant locations to the police. Consequently, subsequent statements by the appellants did not lead to any new fact. In the absence of legally admissible recovery evidence, the Court held that the “last seen together” circumstance alone was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Reiterating the criminal law standard, the Court observed that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. The distance between “may be true” and “must be true” must be bridged by reliable evidence, which was lacking in the present case.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted and directed to be released forthwith, subject to their custody status in any other case.