The Supreme Court has ruled that the seizure of material objects from the body of an accused cannot be treated as a discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if such objects could have been recovered by a mere search upon arrest.
While upholding the conviction of the accused for gang rape and murder based on a complete chain of circumstantial and DNA evidence, the Court acquitted him of charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), emphasizing that knowledge of the victim’s caste is an essential ingredient which the prosecution failed to prove.
The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, in the case of Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana, subsequently modified the sentence from life imprisonment “till the last breath” to a fixed term of 25 years without remission.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to an incident on November 24, 2019, where the deceased, a utensil hawker, went missing after being dropped at Yellapatar Village. Her body was found the next day in bushes near the road. The police charged three accused (A1 to A3) with gang rape (Section 376D IPC) and murder (Section 302 IPC) read with Section 34 IPC, along with offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The prosecution case was that the accused followed the victim, raped her, and A1 slit her throat while A2 and A3 held her. It was also alleged that A2 stole the victim’s mobile phone and A3 took cash found on her. The Trial Court awarded the death penalty, which the High Court commuted to life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. The appellant (A2) approached the Supreme Court on the quantum of sentence.
Key Legal Findings and Observations
Although the notice was issued limited to the quantum of sentence, the Supreme Court examined the conviction itself due to “very serious reservation” regarding specific findings of the High Court.
1. Section 27 Evidence Act: Seizure vs. Discovery
The Court rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the recovery of the victim’s mobile phone from A2 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution claimed A2 handed over the mobile to a witness (PW15) at the police station.
Disapproving this as a valid discovery, the Bench observed:
“There was no concealment as such and in any event, on an arrest, when the material objects could have been seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by the police, the attempt to convert it as a recovery under Section 27 cannot at all accepted.”
The Court held that Section 27 applies only when a disclosure leads to the discovery of a concealed fact or object, not when items are merely taken from an accused’s person. Consequently, A2 was acquitted of the charge under Section 404 IPC (dishonest misappropriation of deceased’s property).
2. Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient for Conviction
The Court found that despite the lack of direct eyewitnesses to the crime, the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete to sustain the conviction for rape and murder.
- Vicinity: Witnesses (PW4, PW5) established that the accused and the deceased were seen in the same vicinity just prior to the crime.
- Medical & DNA Evidence: The time of death in the postmortem report matched the timeline of the witnesses. Crucially, the DNA analysis linked the accused to the crime. The Court noted:”Autosomal SRT analysis having indicated that the seminal stains on the saree of the victim matched with the DNA profiles of A1 and A2 and they are of the same biological origin.”
3. Knowledge of Caste Essential for SC/ST Act Offence
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The Bench clarified that proving the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste is insufficient; the prosecution must prove the accused knew this fact.
“Though the prosecution has proved the caste of the victim/deceased, there is nothing to indicate that the accused knew the caste of the victim or even that they were in any manner acquainted with the victim, to be aware of her caste status. The offence hence cannot be said to have been committed with the knowledge of the caste status of the victim.”
Modification of Sentence
After upholding the conviction for the primary offences, the Court addressed the sentencing. It noted that A2 was 40 years old, a first-time offender, and the sole breadwinner for his family (wife, four children, and aged parents). The Court also observed that there was no report of adverse conduct in jail or evidence that he was beyond reformation.
Finding that the case did not warrant imprisonment till death, the Court ruled:
“We are convinced that the case is one in which imprisonment of life till the remainder of A2’s life can be modified to one extending to 25 years without remission.”
Decision
- Conviction Upheld: Under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC.
- Acquittal: Under Section 404 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
- Sentence: Modified to 25 years rigorous imprisonment without remission.
- Legal Aid: The Registry was directed to forward the judgment to the Telangana Legal Services Authority to aid the non-appealing co-accused (A1 and A3).
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6850 of 2024)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1449
- Coram: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
