A Section 27 discovery alone cannot sustain conviction without a complete chain of corroborating circumstances.

Leela Devi’s headless body was found on 3 March 2007, after she had been missing for several days.

The post-mortem attributed death to a sharp cut injury to the neck.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant’s statement led to recovery of her severed head.

The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and imposed imprisonment for life and a three-year term, respectively.

On appeal, the High Court noted that there was no eyewitness, no recovery of a weapon, and that the alleged recovery witnesses did not support the prosecution.

1. Whether the appellant’s statement to the police was inadmissible as a custodial confession, except for any part admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

2. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant’s information caused discovery of the head and that the recovery, together with the other circumstances, established guilt under Sections 302 and 201 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act bar proof of a confession made to a police officer or while in police custody; Section 27 permits only so much of the information as distinctly relates to a fact discovered in consequence of it.

Under Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, only information concerning the place of discovery and the accused’s knowledge of it is admissible, not a confession to the offence.

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar confirms that a barred confession cannot be severed to admit its incriminating narrative, save for the portion protected by Section 27.

The prosecution must prove that the information preceded and caused the discovery; discovery alone does not establish guilt (Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra; Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan).

For a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a complete chain consistent only with guilt and exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence, as stated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.

Sections 302 and 201 IPC concern, respectively, murder and causing evidence of an offence to disappear.

The Court found that the appellant was likely in police custody when the statement was made, so the narrative confession—including the alleged motive, killing, and concealment—was barred by Sections 25 and 26; at most, the statement that he knew where the head lay could be considered under Section 27.

The prosecution did not establish that this information caused the recovery: the Investigating Officer referred both to secret information and to the appellant’s statement without clarifying which came first, while the principal recovery witnesses were not examined or did not support the recovery.

Nor did medical evidence connect the recovered head to the headless body.

Even if the appellant knew the head’s location, that fact did not establish how he acquired that knowledge, and the remaining evidence—including the limited motive evidence—did not complete a chain pointing only to guilt.

The same evidentiary deficiencies undermined the charge under Section 201 IPC.

As he was on bail, he was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond; the trial court records were directed to be returned.