SANJAY @ KAKA versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 07-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SA NJ A Y @ KAKA 
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 
FEBRUARY 7, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI. JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872; 
Section 27-Disclosure statement-Admissibility of-Accused commilted 
C robhel)' in a house•in consequence of which deceased was stabbed to death--
Accused apprehended on the basis of extra-judicial confession made lo a 
witness-Disclosure statements of accused led to recovery of weapon of 
offence, blood stained clothes and stolen property belonging to deceased-
Accused convicted on circumstantial evidence-Correctness of-Held : 
Disclosure statements do not implicate the accused with the commission of 
D crime but refer only to the nature of property recovered-Such property is 
proved to be the property of deceased, stolen after the robbery and murder--
Besides Section 27, court can draw presumption under Section 114, 
illustration (a) and Section 106-Hence, conviction :1pheld. 
The appellants-accused were convicted by the Designated Trail Court 
E on circumstantial evidence under Sections 392/34, 397 and 302 besides 
Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruption Activities (prevention) Amendment 
Act, 1993. Hence this appeal. 
F 
G 
H 
According to the prosecution, the accused entered a house to commit 
robbery in consequence of which one S was stabbed to death. The accused 
made disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 
pursuant to which the weapon of offence, blood stained clothes and stolen 
property belonging to the deceased were recovered. One of the accused made 
an extra-judicial confession to PW-5 based on which the accused persons 
were apprehended. 
On behalf of the accused persons it was contended that the disclosure 
statements were hit by Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act in view of the 
worlds "after commission of the offence" and "looted property" appearing in 
them. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
904 
SAN.IA Y v. ST ATE 
905 
HELD : I. In this case after the arrest of one of the accused, the A 
extra-judicial confession made by him to P W-5 and recording the statement 
of P W-5 the investigating officer apprehended the other accused persons. In 
his interrogation one of the accused made a confessional statement, a major 
portion of which is inadmissible in evidence being hit by Sections 24 to 26 of 
the Evidence Act, 1872. 1916-Fl 
B 
2. Even if the objectionable words i.e. "after the commission of the 
offence" and "looted property" are deleted, the appellants cannot be conferred 
with any benefit, which would entitle them to acquittal. It is not disputed that 
consequent upon the disclosure statements made, the articles mentioned 
therein were actually recovered at their instance from the place where such C 
articles had been .hidden by them. The mere use of the words "looted property" 
in relation to the articles seized which were found to have been taken away 
after the commission of the crime of murder and robbery would not change 
the nature of the statement. The words do not implicate the accused with the 
commission of the crime but refer only to the nature of the property hidden 
by them, which were ultimately recovered consequent upon their disclosure D 
statements. Hyper technical approach would defeat the ends of justice and 
have disastrous effect. The property recovered consequent upon the making 
of the disclosure statements has been proved to be the property of the deceased, 
stolen after the commission of the offence of robbery and murder.1917-D-G I 
2.2 Besides Section 27, the courts can draw presumptions under E 
Section 114, Illustration (a) and Section 106 of the Evidence Act.1917-HI 
Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR (1947) PC 67; State ofU.P. v. Deoman 
Upadhyaya, AIR (1960) SC 1125; Mohamed fnayatuf/ah v. State of 
Maharashtra, AIR (1976) SC 483; Erabhadrappa alias Krishnappa v. State F 
of Karna/aka. 1198312 SCR 552; State of Maharashtra v. Damu, Sia Gopinath 
Shinde 1200016 SCC 269; Guiab Chandv. State of MP, 1199513 SCC 574; 
Mukund alias Kundu Mishra v. State of MP, 119971 JO SCC 130; Ronny 
alias Ronald James Alwaris v. State of Maharashtra, 119981 3 SCC 625; 
Baijur v. State of MP, AIR (1978) SC 522; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, JT 
(1992) 2 SC 279 and Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, JT 120001 Supp. 3 G 
--- ...,._ sec 528, referred to. 
Sanwat Khan v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1956) SC 54 and Tulsiram 
Kanu v. State AIR(l954) SC I, cited. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPOR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.