The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the death sentences imposed on four accused, acquitted them of all charges, and clarified the narrow admissibility of statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as well as the evidentiary limits of FIRs and statements recorded under §§154 and 164 CrPC.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The State of Haryana (appellant) alleged that four men - Arun, Phool Chand, Dukhan and Ram Suhag - gang-raped two minor sisters aged 13 and 12 on the night of 5-6 August 2021 and subsequently administered a poisonous herbicide, causing their deaths. The victims’ mother initially reported snake-bite injuries, later changed her account to allege rape and poisoning.
Key Facts
- 06 Aug 2021: Victims ‘K’ (13) and ‘R’ (12) were brought to Satyavadi Raja Harishchander Hospital, Narela, Delhi; both later died.
- 06 Aug 2021 (midnight): Mother claimed a black snake bit the girls; later she alleged rape and poisoning.
- 09 Aug 2021: Mother filed a written complaint (Ext P-1) naming the four accused; thumb-impression affixed.
- 10 Aug 2021: Mother gave a statement under §164 CrPC (Ext P-3) claiming she only recognised one accused (Sattu) and did not know the others.
- 10 Aug 2021: All four accused were arrested at 5 PM.
- 11 Aug 2021: Crime-scene team inspected the house; noted a metallic container already in police possession.
- 12 Aug 2021: Accused made disclosure statements (Ext P-40 to P-43) claiming involvement in the crime and leading to recovery of a plastic bottle containing pendimethalin.
- Post-mortem reports (07 Aug 2021): Dr Anil Yadav found extensive genital injuries consistent with sexual assault and blunt-force injuries; no snake-bite marks.
- Forensic toxicology: Pendimethalin detected in victims’ stomachs; no link to any accused.
- DNA analysis: No DNA of any accused matched vaginal swabs or the recovered “parna” cloth.
- Medical examinations of accused (10 PM - 11:05 PM, 10 Aug 2021): No fresh injuries; only old scar marks.
- Trial Court (Nov 18 2023): Convicted all four, imposed death penalty for sections 376 DA, 302, 120 B and rigorous imprisonment for other offences.
- Appeal (Criminal Appeal CRA-D-1522-2023) and Revision (MRC-9-2023): Filed by the convicted appellants challenging the convictions and sentences.
Procedural History
- 09 Aug 2021: Complaint (Ext P-1) filed; FIR (Ext P-59) registered.
- 10 Aug 2021: Statement under §164 CrPC recorded (Ext P-3).
- 12 Aug 2021: Disclosure statements recorded (Ext P-40 to P-43).
- 15 Nov 2022: Trial Court sentenced the accused (death penalty and imprisonment).
- 18 Nov 2023: Trial Court judgment delivered.
- 24 Nov 2023: Order on quantum of sentence pronounced.
- 21 Apr 2022: Criminal revision petition (CRR-634-2022) listed before Single Bench of this Court.
- 23 Feb 2023: Response filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (dated 06/07.02.2024).
- 26 Aug 2026: Full-pronounced judgment delivered by a Division Bench (Justices ANOOP CHITKARA and RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI).
Parties' Positions
- State (appellant): Asserted that the victims were raped, poisoned and murdered by the four accused; relied on the FIR, the mother’s written complaint, the disclosure statements, forensic reports and the DNA analysis.
- Accused (respondents): Contended that the mother’s statements were contradictory, that the forensic evidence did not link any of them to the crime, that the disclosure statements were fabricated and that Section 27 could not be invoked because the facts were already known to police.
Relief Sought
The State sought confirmation of the death sentences and the conviction on all charges. The accused sought quashing of the convictions, setting aside of the death sentences and immediate release.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether statements recorded under §§154 and 164 CrPC, and the disclosure statements invoked under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are admissible to prove the guilt of the accused, and whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The State relied on Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak v. State of Bihar and Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur to argue that a statement under §164 CrPC is admissible for corroboration and contradiction.
- It contended that the disclosure statements led to the discovery of the poison bottle and the “parna” cloth, satisfying the requisites of Section 27.
- The prosecution highlighted the post-mortem findings of sexual assault and the presence of pendimethalin as proof of poisoning.
For the Respondent
- The accused relied on State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh and Manu v. State of Tamil Nadu to emphasize that Section 27 admits only the portion of a statement that relates distinctly to the fact discovered.
- They argued that the forensic DNA reports showed no match with any accused, that the “parna” cloth was not linked to the crime, and that the poison bottle had already been in police possession before the disclosures.
- They highlighted the contradictions between the mother’s written complaint (Ext P-1) and her statement under §164 CrPC (Ext P-3), asserting that the FIR is not substantive evidence under Section 154 CrPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reiterating the constitutional protection under Art. 20(3) and the statutory safeguards of Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act. It observed that:
"An FIR is not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict the maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act."
The Court examined the six-fold test for admissibility under Section 27 (disclosure by an accused in custody, voluntariness, relevance, distinct connection to the discovered fact, and that the fact was not previously known). It found that:
- The metallic container noted on 11 Aug 2021 was already in police possession, rendering the later recovery of a plastic bottle irrelevant to the discovery requirement.
- The DNA analysis (Ext PY) demonstrated that none of the accused’ DNA matched the vaginal swabs or the “parna” cloth, negating any link to the crime.
- The mother’s statements were contradictory; she named the accused in the written complaint but denied knowledge of them in the §164 statement, making the FIR and the complaint unreliable.
- The forensic report showed pendimethalin, a herbicide, not a snake-bite toxin, and there were no oral-cavity injuries consistent with forced poisoning.
- Medical examinations of the accused revealed only old scar marks, not injuries caused during the alleged assault.
The Court stressed that Section 27 does not transform a confession into admissible evidence unless the disclosed fact is distinctly related to the discovery. The prosecution failed to prove that the disclosed facts (the poison bottle and the “parna”) were distinctly connected to the accused’ participation. Consequently, the disclosure statements were inadmissible.
Applying the principle of reasonable doubt (Sheikh Hasib Alias Tabarak), the Court held that the prosecution had not established any legally admissible link between the accused and the rape or the alleged poisoning. The cumulative effect of the contradictory statements, the lack of DNA correlation, and the absence of forensic linkage rendered the case “hazy” and insufficient for conviction.
The Verdict
All four appellants were acquitted of every charge; the death sentences and all other punishments were set aside. The Court ordered:
- Immediate release of the accused; they may furnish personal bonds under §481 BNSS, 2023 without any surety.
- Destruction of all remaining case property after six months from the pronouncement of this judgment.
- The murder reference (MRC-9-2023) was dismissed.
- The registry was directed to forward a copy of this order to the Sessions Court under §412 BNSS, 2023.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Evidentiary Value of Statements Under Section 27
Practitioners must ensure that any disclosure statement leads to the discovery of a new fact that was not already known to the investigating agency, and that the portion of the statement admitted is distinctly related to that fact. Mere recovery of items already in police possession will not satisfy the test.
Importance of Corroborative Scientific Evidence
DNA, toxicology and post-mortem findings must be directly linked to the accused. Absence of a DNA match or lack of forensic correlation defeats reliance on circumstantial evidence alone.
Procedural Safeguards for Disclosure Statements
The six-fold test (custody, voluntariness, relevance, distinct connection, novelty, and proper panchnama) must be meticulously documented. Failure to produce an independent panchnama or to record the accused’s exact words renders the statement inadmissible.
- Verify that the object recovered was not already in police possession.
- Obtain independent witness verification at the time of disclosure.
- Ensure the panchnama records the exact statement and the subsequent discovery.
- Corroborate any disclosure with independent forensic evidence before relying on Section 27.
