Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 27 – Discovery of Fact – Criminal trial – Three accused – Disclosure statement allegedly made by accused no.3-appellant – Recovery of dead body of complainant’s husband – Appreciation of evidence – Held: s.27 requires that the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the said fact – The information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery – If a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence – The law expects the investigating Officer to draw the discovery panchnama u/s. 27 – In the present case, the recovery panchnama is not in accordance with the said requirement, and also there is no statement of accused no.3-appellant recorded u/s. 27 – Consequently, prosecution failed to prove the circumstance that dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused No. 3-appellant – IPC – ss. 395, 364, 365, 380, 201, 302 and 302 r/w s. 34.

Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 27 – Application of – Held: Provisions of s. 27 are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence.

Evidence – Last seen theory – Discussed – Held: Last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible – If the gap between the time of last seen and the deceased found dead is long, then the possibility of other person coming in between cannot be ruled out.

Criminal Trial – Murder case – Case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of circumstantial evidence – On facts, the only circumstance against the accused was that he was last seen in the company of deceased on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 – However, solely on the basis of last seen theory, conviction cannot be upheld – Prosecution failed to prove the chain of incriminating circumstances which leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused – Judgment passed by trial Court, thereby convicting appellant and impugned judgment passed by High Court affirming the same, accordingly, set aside – Appellant acquitted – IPC – ss. 395, 364, 365, 380, 201, 302 and 302 r/w s. 34.

Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of – Golden principles with regard to conviction in a case which rests entirely on circumstantial evidence – Discussed – Criminal Trial.