A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This landmark case Lachman Singh and Others v. The State, 1952 SCR 839, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, addresses the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with reference to admissibility of discovery statements made by multiple accused persons. The accused, tried and convicted for the gruesome double murder of two brothers, were implicated based on a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. The ruling decisively explored whether facts discovered through multiple accused persons under police custody could be simultaneously admissible, especially when it is unclear who made the first disclosure. It further affirmed the principles governing criminal appeals, especially where the trial and High Court have already scrutinised the evidence and convicted the accused. The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s cautious standard of relying on circumstantial evidence to corroborate direct evidence, also reviewed issues relating to motive, post-mortem findings, group liability under Section 149 and Section 34 IPC, and misgivings about police conduct during investigation. The decision ultimately upheld the convictions, emphasizing that the law under Section 27 must not be mechanically applied to rule out cogent evidence. The case plays a seminal role in shaping the jurisprudence surrounding discovery under police custody and the limits of procedural technicalities in the face of compelling evidence.

Keywords: Section 27 Evidence Act, Common Intention, Section 149 IPC, Admissibility, Criminal Appeal, Confession, Discovery Statement, Forensic Evidence, Eye-Witness Testimony, Group Liability

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Lachman Singh and Others v. The State
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1950
iii) Judgement Date: 21 March 1952
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Saiyid Fazl Ali and Vivian Bose, JJ.
vi) Author: Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali
vii) Citation: 1952 SCR 839
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Sections 302, 149, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
  ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled, but judicial commentary indicates potential reconsideration of previous interpretations of Section 27
  x) Case is Related to: Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Constitutional Law (Art. 134), and Procedural Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from a brutal double murder that occurred on 16 December 1948 in the village of Dalam, Punjab. The victims, Achhar Singh and Darshan Singh, were ambushed by the appellants and others allegedly seeking revenge for an earlier murder involving the accused’s family. The trial culminated in the conviction of three principal accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, which the Punjab High Court later upheld. The case reached the Supreme Court by special leave under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court scrutinised the legal admissibility of discovery evidence when multiple accused were involved, and probed the nuances of criminal liability in the absence of a formal charge under Section 34 IPC, despite acquittals of some co-accused originally charged under Section 149 IPC.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 16 December 1948, Achhar Singh went to the house of Inder Singh in village Dalam to get paddy husked. His brother Darshan Singh joined him later in the evening. On their return journey, both were attacked in a lane by five assailants, including the three appellants. The attackers used deadly weapons and killed both on the spot. After killing them, they wrapped the bodies in blood-stained kheses and transported them to Saleempura. There, they dismembered the bodies and disposed them into a stream called Sakinala, located about five miles away. Bela Singh, the father of the deceased and an eye-witness, filed an FIR the following morning. The investigation led to the arrests of the accused and recovery of weapons and blood-stained items based on their disclosures. The trial court convicted the three main accused under Section 302/149 IPC, while the Punjab High Court, applying a more cautious standard, maintained the convictions of the appellants but acquitted the rest.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the statements of multiple accused persons made in custody can be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act when it is not established who made the first disclosure.
ii. Whether a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is maintainable when the original charge was framed under Section 302/149 IPC, and co-accused were acquitted.
iii. Whether the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses was credible enough for conviction.
iv. Whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently corroborated the direct eye-witness accounts.
v. Whether police conduct during the investigation raised sufficient suspicion to nullify the recoveries.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioners / Appellants submitted that Section 27 of the Evidence Act only allows admission of the first information that led to the discovery. As the prosecution failed to prove which accused gave the information first, they argued that no discovery could be valid against any accused. They further contended that the recoveries of blood-stained clothes and weapons were staged by the police, making them inadmissible. The counsel also raised procedural objections, asserting that since the High Court had altered the basis of conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 302/34 IPC, the accused were prejudiced due to lack of prior notice or charge under Section 34 IPC. Lastly, they questioned the reliability of eye-witnesses, especially considering the implausibility of the accused continuing to wear blood-stained clothes days after the murder, and stressed inconsistencies in the prosecution’s story and timing of the murder deduced from the stomach contents.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that Swaran Singh’s conduct—leading the police to the stream and pointing out the dismembered body parts—clearly constituted a valid disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. They emphasized that the law does not necessitate that only the “first” disclosure be admissible, especially when the physical act of pointing out remains distinct. The State argued that eye-witnesses, especially Bela Singh and Inder Singh, were consistent and had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. They dismissed allegations of police fabrication, pointing to consistent testimonies from recovery witnesses. On the issue of Sections 34 and 149 IPC, they argued that the facts clearly demonstrated common intention and participation, which sufficed to sustain the conviction. They further highlighted the motive rooted in revenge, establishing mens rea and explaining the extreme brutality.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Admissibility of discovery based on accused’s statement
ii. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder
iii. Section 149 IPC – Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object
iv. Section 34 IPC – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
v. Section 201 IPC – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence
vi. Article 134(1)(c), Constitution of India – Appeal to the Supreme Court in criminal matters

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not exclude discovery evidence merely because multiple accused disclosed the same information, particularly if one accused clearly led the police to the exact location. The Court relied on the clarity of Swaran Singh’s conduct in discovering the body parts. It emphasized that physical conduct in leading to the recovery is crucial, not merely the verbal information. The conviction could stand independently based on this. The Court also held that even if Section 149 IPC fell due to the acquittal of some co-accused, Section 34 IPC could be invoked as the facts justified common intention. The judgments of the Sessions and High Court were thus validated.

b. OBITER DICTA

i. The Court remarked that some earlier decisions interpreting Section 27 restrictively may have gone beyond the text of the provision and may require reconsideration in future cases. It stressed that such technical objections should not defeat justice where substantive evidence clearly exists.

c. GUIDELINES (IF ANY)

• Evidence under Section 27 must be viewed in context, especially when followed by conduct such as pointing out locations.

• Procedural lapses like non-identification of who disclosed first do not nullify substantive discoveries.

• Courts can alter the basis of conviction from Section 149 IPC to Section 34 IPC if facts justify common intention.

• Independent corroboration of eye-witness testimony with circumstantial evidence strengthens the reliability of prosecution’s case.

• Police conduct must be scrutinized, but suspicion alone does not invalidate lawful recoveries.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment in Lachman Singh and Others v. The State remains a defining moment in criminal jurisprudence regarding the admissibility of discovery-based evidence under custodial interrogation. It reaffirms the principle that form must not override substance in criminal trials. By endorsing a flexible and realistic interpretation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court avoided the pitfalls of a hyper-technical approach, which could have let perpetrators escape conviction despite compelling evidence. The judgment also clarifies the permissible judicial scope in substituting Section 34 IPC for Section 149 IPC, a matter of recurring concern in group crime cases. Ultimately, this ruling harmonizes evidentiary rules with practical investigation realities and promotes a justice-centric application of the law.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67
[2] State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125
[3] Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 985
[4] Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216
[5] Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706

b. Important Statutes Referred
[6] Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 34, 149, 201, 302
[7] Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27
[8] Constitution of India, Article 134(1)(c)