Section 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Statement Must Reflect Accused's Exact Words, Not Translator's Interpretation: Kerala HC Acquits in Murder Case

Kerala High Court sets aside a murder conviction, ruling that recovery statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must strictly reproduce the accused's own words. Any deviation or interpretation by the translator vitiates the evidence, reinforcing fair trial standards in criminal proceedings.

Cassie News Network•

Jul 15, 2026, 7:19 PM(Updated: Nov 3, 2026)

•3 min read

Be the first to share in your circle

The Kerala High Court's recent judgment in L-Mamun @ Mamun v. State of Kerala underscores a critical procedural safeguard in criminal trials: the requirement that disclosure statements leading to recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act must faithfully record the accused's exact words. The Court set aside a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the appellant's guilt, particularly due to flaws in the recovery proceedings and the appellant's inability to understand the trial language.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, a Bangladeshi national, was employed in a scrap shop owned by PW1 Nazeer in Erattupetta, Kerala. He shared a lodge room with the deceased, Keshab Das. On 25.10.2017, an altercation arose between them when the deceased refused to play cards and allegedly slapped the appellant. The prosecution alleged that on 26.10.2017, the appellant stabbed Keshab Das to death in the lodge bathroom, absconded, and was later arrested from Balurghat Jail, West Bengal, on 10.11.2017.

Key Facts

25.10.2017: Altercation between the appellant and the deceased at about 9:00 p.m.
26.10.2017: Appellant allegedly committed the murder at about 6:50 p.m. and absconded
30.10.2017: Body of Keshab Das discovered in the lodge bathroom, emitting a foul smell
30.10.2017: Crime No. 2057/2017 registered under Section 302 IPC at Erattupetta Police Station
31.10.2017: Post-mortem conducted by PW12, revealing multiple stab injuries
07.11.2017: Address report detailing the deceased's identity submitted
10.11.2017: Appellant arrested from Balurghat Jail, West Bengal
16.11.2017: Recoveries allegedly made at the appellant's instance:
- MO3 knife (Ext.P4 mahazar)
- MO5 dhoti (Ext.P9 mahazar)
- MO7 key (Ext.P11 mahazar)
26.10.2017: Appellant sold his mobile phone (MO4) to PW4 for ₹2,500 (Ext.P7 purchase bill)

Procedural History

12.06.2018: Charge sheet filed before the Sessions Court, Kottayam
12.10.2021: Charge framed under Section 302 IPC and Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946
10.02.2020 - 14.02.2023: Trial proceedings, including examination of 23 prosecution witnesses
27.01.2024: Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000/-, with a default clause. Acquitted under the Foreigners Act
28.03.2024: Criminal Appeal filed before the Kerala High Court

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal, contending that the prosecution failed to establish:

The identity of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt
The appellant's presence at the scene of crime on 26.10.2017
The reliability of recoveries allegedly made at his instance
A complete chain of circumstances pointing to his guilt

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly when the appellant, a foreign national, did not understand the language of the trial, and the disclosure statements were recorded in flawless Malayalam without reflecting his exact words.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

The prosecution failed to conclusively establish the identity of the deceased, despite collecting tissue samples for DNA analysis
The recoveries of MO3 knife, MO5 dhoti, and MO7 key were not proved in accordance with law, as the disclosure statements were recorded in flawless Malayalam, not the appellant's words
The alleged motive - retaliation for a slap - was insufficient to establish guilt
The appellant's abscondance was not indicative of guilt, as he had informed his employer of his intention to leave prior to the incident
The prosecution relied on interested witnesses and stock witnesses who merely parroted the investigating officer's version

For the Respondent/State

The prosecution established all circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn

Frequently Asked Questions

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits the admission of information received from an accused in custody if it leads to the discovery of a fact. However, only the portion of the information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible. The disclosure statement must be recorded in the accused's exact words, especially when translation is involved. In this case, the Court held that the recoveries were inadmissible because the disclosure statements were recorded in flawless Malayalam, not the appellant's words.

For a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that: - Are conclusively proved - Are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt - Are not explainable on any other hypothesis except the accused's guilt - Form a conclusive nature and tendency - Leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the accused's innocence The Court relied on precedents like Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Krishnan v. State to emphasize these requirements.

No, the Court held that abscondance alone is not a strong circumstance pointing to guilt. It is possible that an accused may abscond out of fear of arrest or harassment, even if innocent. The Court relied on precedents like Matru Alias Girish Chandra v. State of U.P. and Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand to emphasize that abscondance should not be used to draw an adverse inference against the accused.

When an accused does not understand the trial language, the following procedural safeguards must be followed: - Section 273 CrPC: Evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused or his pleader, ensuring the accused can effectively follow the proceedings - Section 279 CrPC: Evidence recorded in a language not understood by the accused must be interpreted in open court - Section 281 CrPC: The accused's examination under Section 313 CrPC must be interpreted in a language he understands - Section 318 CrPC: If the accused cannot understand the proceedings, the case must be forwarded to the High Court for appropriate orders The Court emphasized that these provisions are not empty formalities but are intended to ensure a fair trial.

Section 27 Evidence Act | Recovery Statement Must Reflect Accused's Exact Words, Not Translator's Interpretation: Kerala HC Acquits in Murder Case