NDLI: Boby Vs. State of Kerala

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Criminal trial Evidence Ac 1872 s.27 Discovery of Fact
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 23
Petitioner	Boby
Respondent	State Of Kerala
SCR	[2023] 1 S.C.R. 335
Judgement Date	2023-01-12
Case Number	1439

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Boby Vs. State of Kerala

Please Log-in to view this content

Jaffer Hussein Dastgir Vs. State of Maharashtra

Venkatesh @ Chandra & Anr. Etc Vs. State of Karnataka

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Miss Xyz Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr

Khema @ Khem Chandra Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

State of U.p. Vs. Veerpal & Anr.

Gireesan Nair & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala

Budhsen Vs. State of U.p.

Sevantilal Karsondas Modi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another

Boby Vs. State of Kerala

Boby Vs. State of Kerala

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Jaffer Hussein Dastgir Vs. State of Maharashtra

Venkatesh @ Chandra & Anr. Etc Vs. State of Karnataka

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Miss Xyz Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr

Khema @ Khem Chandra Etc. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

State of U.p. Vs. Veerpal & Anr.

Gireesan Nair & Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Kerala

Budhsen Vs. State of U.p.

Sevantilal Karsondas Modi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another

Boby Vs. State of Kerala