This article has been written by MS. KHAN GULFASHA BANU WAHID a Second year BA.LLB Student from HVPS COLLEGE OF LAW.
INTRODUCTION:
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
This Section lays down that if the accused makes a confession, it could be used to prove a fact or the discovery of new facts in the investigation. That would be admissible in the court of law. If a confession is obtained under threat or promise and it proves a fact, it would still be admissible.
In the case of the death of the accused, FIR can also be used as substantial evidence. This was observed in Damodar Prasad v. State of U. P (2019). The confessions which become inadmissible under Section 25 could lead to the discovery of new facts in the case and would become admissible under Section 27.
SECTION 27 SCOPE AND REQUIREMENTS
Phulkari Kotayya V. Emperor is an important judgement about the ambit and scope of section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was observed in this case that the fact discovered within section not as equivalent to the object produced. The fact discovered include the place from which the object is produced and the accused’s knowledge as to this. But the information given must relate distinctly or clearly to the discovered fact. The Information should not be related to past user or the past history of the object produced.
Sec. 27 makes a confessional statement relevant even if it is made to a police officer in police custody, but the condition is that the confession made has led to the discovery of some facts. The essentials ingredients of section 27 are:
- That a fact is discovered, which is relevant, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence.
- Fact discovered must be deposed to.
- Such information which leads to discovery of fact must be given by the accused person in police custody.
- Only so much of the information as relates distinctly and clearly to the facts thereby discovered is may be proved.
If the statement of an accused person made to the police officer satisfy all requirements hereinbefore mentioned his statement may be used against him, but only so much of statement which relates distinctly and clearly to the facts thereby recovered.
RECEIVING OF INFORMATION FROM ACCUSED PERSON
Only such information is admissible under Sec-27, which proceeds from a person accused of an offence. It may often happen that there are more accused than one, and this fact also cannot be denied that information given by one accused may be known to others. A discovery made on information received from one accused is not relevant against the others. But in a case where a joint statement/disclosure is made by two or more accused then, evidence must be led to indicate as to which of them first made the statement which led to discovery. It is statement made by the first accused that can be admitted under Sec. 27 as against him. the statement made by the other accused after the discovery of fact cannot be used in evidence against him as the statement made by him does not relates distinctly to the facts discovered, because no fact has been discovered on the basis of statements of such accused, a discovered fact cannot be rediscovered. Where prosecution is not in a position to establish in case of joint statement as to who made the first that led to discovery, the evidence under section 27 would not be admissible to establish the guilt of either accused.
In State (NCT Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu case The Supreme Court expressed its view on simultaneous disclosure/joint disclosure. In this case admissibility of information received from both accused relating to the discovery of hideouts of the deceased terrorist, recovery of other relevant things was in issue. Both accused together led the police to two hideouts and shops and pointed out the hideouts and shops. the Supreme Court said joint disclosure or simultaneous disclosure, per se, is not inadmissible under section – 27.the expression “A person accused” need not necessarily be a single person, but it could be two or more accused. If information received is given one after the other without any break, almost simultaneously and the information is followed up by pointing out the material things by both of them, there is no good reason to abjure such evidence from the regime of section 27. Credibility and Admissibility are two separate aspects, and to what extent such simultaneous disclosure could be relies upon by court is a matter of evaluation of evidence by court
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SEC 27 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872:
The Supreme Court in State of UP v. Deoman Upadhyaya decided the Question of constitutional validity of Sec.-27. The one of the main issues was relating to the classification between person in custody and person not in custody. The Supreme Court held that provision sec. 27 of evidence act are not discriminatory and unfair, and therefore does not violate article 14 of the Constitution. Under Cr.P.C. statement or information given by a person who is not in police custody in consequence of which something associated with the crime is discovered, the statement cannot be proved against him, but in case of statement by a person in police custody it would have become provable against him. The Supreme Court said the reason for classification is to encourage people not in custody to give information about crime. The court held classification as reasonable and valid, not artificial, arbitrary or evasive.
After Deoman case, in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and others a question relating to constitutionality of section 27 was raised before the Supreme Court that the Section is unconstitutional because it violates the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
The court held that if accused person has given self-incriminatory statement or information without any threat, that will be admissible in evidence under this section though it was given under any inducement or promise and the same will not violate Article 20 (3) of the constitution of India, for the reason that the statement or information was given without any compulsion. The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not within the bar aforesaid, unless compulsion has been used in obtaining the information.
CONCLUSION
Section-27 lays down the English doctrine of confirmation by subsequent facts. The section is a valuable provision in the form of exception to the proceeding section 24, 25 and 26. Irrelevant confessions under aforesaid provisions become relevant if they fall under the provision of sec. 27. When any statement leads to the discovery of a fact connected with the crime it is admissible in evidence whether it is obtained by any inducements or promise, or made to police officer, or made during the time of police custody by the accused person, which otherwise not relevant and admissible in evidence against the accused. The discovery of the fact assures the truth of the statement and makes it reliable. Thus, it appears that the intention of the legislature is that all objections to the validity of that part of the statement be removed which leads to the discovery of a fact related to the crime. Statement made by the accused not only relevant in the present case in which it is made, but also in some other case, if the statement led to the discovery of a fact relating to the both cases.
REFERENCE:
Principles of the Law of Evidence (Avtar Singh) 21st Edition, 2014, Central Law Publication, Allahabad, 146.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/438019/
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening