1. The vague information you have provided looks like that there is no fool proof case agaisnt this particular accused person.

2.The degree proof required in criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt and no conviction can be made on mere suspicion .howsoever.strong the same is.

3.So in this case the acquittal seems a forgone conclusion.

Section 27 lays down that during the period of investigation or during police custody any information is given by the accused of an offence to the police officer that leads to discover any fact, may be proved whether such information amounts to confession or not, and obtained under inducement, threat or promise.

2) Section 27 is by way of a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused.

3) if the prosecution are unable to prove commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt accused would be acquitted

Dealing with the question relating to admissibility of confessional statement made by an accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Supreme Court explained the law by stating that Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, it lays down how much of an information received from accused may be proved.

The bench of H.L. Dattu, CJ and Arun Mishra, J further explained that for application of section 27 of Evidence Act, admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery and only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement, if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the Police before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in the evidence.

Hence, in the present case, where a new discovery of fact was made regarding a co-accused by statements made by the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which lead to the nabbing of the co-accused in a case relating to fake currency notes, it was held that such statements which lead to the discovery of facts not in the knowledge of the police, fell under the exception given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1043, decided on 27.10.2015]

Especially, In these types of cases the trail relied on documentary evidences ( ie., primary evidence submitted according to Sec. 64 of IEA ) . Based on your words, the IO would not have investigated properly.

I need to see the case details to provide more information.

Hi, if the witnesses are hostile them there is no case for the prosecution .. There are numerous judgments where if prosecution fails to proof thier case before reasonable doubt , the accused cannot be convicted

Hello,

if the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond all the reasonable doubts then there can be no conviction.

The aforementioned is a settled legal proposition and has been reiterated by the Hon'ble supreme Court in various judgment.

Though for a concrete advice I would like to see the complete paper book. However prima facie it seems that there can be no conviction the case as sec 27 is proviso to sec 25 and 26 and these facts under sec 27 can not be relied upon.

Regards

It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and if the prosecution fails to do so, the person cannot be convicted solely on the basis of statement given under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Having said that, I need to peruse the paper book of your to give a concrete advise but prima facie it seems that there'll be no conviction in this case.

Holding witnesses as eyes and ears of justice, the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the recent "phenomenon" where witnesses are turning hostile in high-profile cases to frustrate the justice delivery system, resulting in the accused getting acquitted.

It said that there might be cases where witnesses resiled from the statements given to the investigating officers as he/she was forced to give such statements by the officer but threat and intimidation by the accused had been one of the major causes for the hostility of witnesses.

The court passed the order while convicting a man for killing his wife and awarding him life imprisonment. The court discarded the statement of the brother of the deceased who turned hostile. The brother had tried to "protect" his brotherin-law by stating that the accused was with him at the time of the incident.

In criminal appeal No. 158/2013 before the high court of judicature of Madras, the judgment delivered on 24.03.2013 in Pazhanisamy Vs. State by police of ramanathpuram, coimbatore, the following was observed by the court:

76.Under our system of administration of Criminal Justice, an accused is entitled to keep mum to the accusations made against him, even refuse to plead as against the charges framed against him. He can simply tie his hands and stand in the dock. It is for the prosecution to produce witnesses and establish the charges against him beyond all reasonable doubts.

77.The court cannot frame up its mind, come to a conclusion, whether the accused is guilty or not, on seeing his face. The court cannot be fooled by his pretensions in the Court. Nor a court be carried away by the appearance, characteristic features of the accused. In the court, a robberer may pose himself a pious man and a pious man may appear to be a robberer. The accused may take any number of roles and enact dramas. But a court of law cannot be carried away by that. There cannot be a judgment of the Court based on the face / value of the accused. The judgment of the Court must be based on the value of evidence and not on suspicion or surmises, however, strong it may be.

87.Thus, none of the basis chosen by the trial court to convict the accused has the sanction of law. We have no hesitation to accept the arguments of Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran, the learned counsel for the appellant that this case is a classic case of findings recorded not based on any legal evidence and the findings are made without any acceptable evidence.

88.Thus, we hold that the prosecution has not established the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Consequently, the conviction and sentences passed against him must go.

89.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore in S.C.No.199 of 2010 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore shall release him forthwith, if his further custody is no longer required in connection with any other case / proceedings. Fine amount, if paid already, shall be refunded.