Govind v. State of Haryana; 2025 INSC 1318 - S.27 Evidence Act
Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Section 27 is an exception to the preceding Sections 25 and 26. The language further indicates that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person who is in custody of the Police in connection of an offence, it must relate distinctly to the fact so discovered. The word “distinctly” indicates directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably, apparently, used in Section 27 to limit and define the scope of probable information. Therefore, only that much information as is clearly connected with the fact discovered can be treated as relevant under the phrase ‘facts discovered’. (Para 15)
Criminal Trial - Even if the FSL report indicates that the pistol and cartridges recovered correlate with the bullets found in the body of the deceased, such evidence by itself is not sufficient to establish the accused's guilt in the absence of any proof that the recovered pistol was indeed used in the commission of the offence. (Para 23)
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: Govind v. State of Haryana.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1318.
- Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.
- Judgment date: November 14, 2025.
Caselaws and Citations
- Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1421.
- Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 3 SCC 314.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370.
- State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, (2002) 1 SCC 622.
- Lochan Srivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 15 SCC 401.
- Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., (2021) 13 SCC 716.
- Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2023) 6 SCC 605.
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Indian Penal Code: Section 302.
- Arms Act, 1959: Section 25.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Sections 25, 26, and 27.
#SupremeCourt judgment on the word “distinctly” in Section 27 Evidence Act: https://t.co/QFlXsqbfnp pic.twitter.com/v8ywLdSYS0
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 14, 2025