Case Comment
“What if I told you a statement made in police custody is usually inadmissible but one small part of it can still convict you?”
That’s exactly what the Supreme Court clarified in Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026).” This case revisits Section 27 of the Evidence Act -the narrow exception that allows part of a custodial statement to be admitted.But the Court sent a strong warning. Only that portion of the statement which distinctly relates to the fact discovered
is admissible- Not the confession, Not the narrative, Not the story. The Court Clarified that recovery alone is not proof of guilt; the discovery must be genuinely new and the prosecution must prove the police did not already know.
Section 27 is an exception — and exceptions are construed strictly. Section 27 is not a backdoor for confessions. It’s a narrow evidentiary window and this judgment makes that crystal clear. Read more…
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://legal.relegal.in/subscribe-newsletter/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #circumstantialevidence #Section27oftheIndianEvidenceAct1872 #custodialconfession #botchedinvestigation #accusedacquitted
Rohit Jangde v State of Chhattisgarh
17 February 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 162 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(4)[16] Bench: Justices P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Chandran
The Supreme Court held that a recovery statement made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not admissible if the accused was not in formal custody of the police when the information was provided.
On 5 October 2018, the appellant had a physical altercation with his second wife, resulting in her hospitalisation. An FIR was subsequently filed against him but conflicting evidence made it unclear whether he was arrested on 5 October or 6 October. A neighbour alleged that the appellant had left on a motorcycle with his stepdaughter following the incident. However, a ‘missing’ report was only registered for the daughter on 11 October. An oral report claimed she disappeared at 9pm on 6 October. On 13 October, the accused provided a Section 27 statement regarding the location of the child’s remains. From that site, the police recovered bones, ashes, a skull and teeth fragments. The vertebrae and teeth matched the child’s biological parents. The police then arrested the accused for murder that same day. The High Court upheld his conviction based on the neighbour’s statement and the DNA match.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court verdict acquitting the appellant on the ground that chain of circumstantial evidence was broken. The claim that the appellant had left on a motorcycle could not be corroborated as he was in police custody when the child went missing. Moreover, the neighbour’s statement was recorded seven days after the altercation. The Court did not consider the Section 27 statement as the accused was not in formal custody when it was recorded and was only arrested after the remains were found. It clarified that such statements will be admissible under Section 8 of the Act.