Discovery Statements Under Section 27
What is Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Section 27 deals with discovery of facts in relation to the cause of a crime when such facts are discovered through information received from a person accused of a crime.
Text of Section 27 (paraphrased):
When any fact is discovered as a result of information received from an accused person in custody or otherwise, relating to the commission of the crime, that fact is relevant and may be given in evidence even if the statement containing that information is itself not admissible.
Key Points About Section 27:
It applies only when the accused voluntarily gives information about the discovery of facts.
The fact discovered (e.g., location of stolen property, weapon) is admissible as evidence.
The statement made by the accused (the confession or admission) is not itself admissible under Section 27.
It serves as an exception to the rule against self-incriminating statements.
The discovery must be directly attributable to the information provided by the accused.
Purpose of Section 27:
To allow courts to use tangible evidence (facts discovered) that leads to proof of crime.
To exclude inadmissible confessions but still allow the fruits of such information.
Important Case Laws on Section 27 Indian Evidence Act
1. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1959 AIR 91)
Facts: The accused led police to the dead body of the victim.
Legal Principle: The Supreme Court held that facts discovered based on the accused's information can be admitted under Section 27, but the statement itself is inadmissible.
Significance: Established the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle does not apply here; the tangible evidence discovered is admissible even if the initial statement is not.
2. Brij Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1953 SC 240)
Facts: Accused led police to the place where stolen goods were hidden.
Legal Principle: The Court emphasized the requirement that the discovery of fact must be directly due to the information furnished by the accused.
Significance: Clarified the distinction between the statement and the discovered fact; only the latter is admissible.
3. Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1953 SC 213)
Facts: Police arrested accused and found a weapon based on the accused’s information.
Legal Principle: The Court stated the necessity of voluntariness in giving information for Section 27 to apply.
Significance: Highlighted that coercion or inducement invalidates Section 27’s applicability.
4. R. Chinnaswami v. State of Madras (AIR 1956 SC 141)
Facts: Accused gave information leading to the discovery of evidence.
Legal Principle: The Court explained that Section 27 is an exception to the general rule under Section 25 (which excludes confessions made to police officers).
Significance: Confirmed that discovery statements and facts are admissible even if made to police officers, provided conditions of Section 27 are met.
5. Satpal v. State of Haryana (AIR 2000 SC 2234)
Facts: Accused pointed out the spot where the weapon was hidden.
Legal Principle: The Supreme Court held that for Section 27, there must be a clear causal connection between the statement and the fact discovered.
Significance: Reaffirmed the importance of the direct causal link between the accused’s information and the discovery.
6. Raghunath Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1960 SC 523)
Facts: Accused gave information under arrest but without being warned of his rights.
Legal Principle: Court ruled that even if the statement is made without caution, the fact discovered on the basis of such information is admissible under Section 27.
Significance: Focuses on admissibility of facts discovered, not the voluntariness or admissibility of the statement.
Summary of Key Principles Under Section 27
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Applicability | Applies only to facts discovered from information given by accused. |
| Statement Admissibility | Statement itself is inadmissible under Section 27 but facts are admissible. |
| Voluntariness | Information must be given voluntarily for Section 27 to apply. |
| Causal Connection | There must be a direct link between the statement and the discovered fact. |
| Scope | Only facts leading to discovery of evidence related to crime admissible. |
Practical Example:
Suppose an accused person, upon arrest, tells police "the stolen goods are buried under the old tree near the river." The police recover the stolen goods from that spot.
The statement (the confession) is not admissible as evidence.
But the discovered fact (stolen goods under the tree) is admissible under Section 27.
RELATED Blog
0 comments