JASWANTSINGH S/O. UDAYSINGH CHAVAN (IN JAIL) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. POLICE STATION OFFICER POLICE STATION OLD CITY AKOLA
Admissibility of Chance Witness Testimony and Scope of Discovery Memorandums Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in Homicide Cases.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:4309-DB
Decision Date: 16-03-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Arms Act, 1959
- Facts: The deceased, Kishor Khatri, a real estate mediator, was last seen leaving Balaji Mall on 03.11.2015 in a Tata Safari with Accused No. 2 (Ranjitsingh). Later that day, his body was discovered at Somthana Shivar with a deep incised neck wound and a gunshot injury to the chest. The prosecution alleged that the appellant (Accused No. 3), a member of the State Reserve Police Force, and Accused No. 2 murdered the deceased pursuant to a conspiracy. The case relied on the ocular testimony of PW 5 and PW 10, who witnessed the assault while traveling on a kachcha road, and the recovery of a "Kukari" (knife) at the instance of the appellant. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the witnesses were "chance witnesses" whose presence was doubtful, their statements were recorded with a five-day delay, and the recovery memorandum lacked specific details of the concealment site.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B of the IPC. This criminal appeal was preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the conviction and life sentence.
- Issue: 1. Whether the ocular testimony of "chance witnesses" can be discarded solely due to their presence being accidental or a delay in recording their statements. 2. Whether a recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is inadmissible if the memorandum does not contain a detailed description of the place of concealment.
- Holding: 1. No, the evidence of chance witnesses cannot be discarded if their presence is natural and their testimony is found reliable upon careful scrutiny. 2. No, the discovery of a fact is not ignored merely because the memorandum lacks a detailed description, provided the discovery was a direct consequence of the information supplied by the accused.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that "chance witnesses" are common in public places or streets, and their evidence requires scrutiny but not automatic rejection. The five-day delay in PW 5 and PW 10 coming forward was explained by the influential nature of the accused. Their descriptions of the deceased matched photographs, and their account of the assault was consistent with medical and ballistic evidence. Regarding Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that the law does not prescribe a "particular format" for the disclosure statement. If the accused leads the police to the spot and produces the weapon, the requirement of "discovery of fact" is satisfied. The Court also noted the appellant's unexplained absence from duty (abscondence) as a relevant conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The coordinated use of a knife and a firearm at a secluded spot indicated a prior meeting of minds and common intention.
🔒 For Members Only