Section 27, Evidence Act, reads as follows: Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence 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.
In Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor, reported as AIR 1947 PC 67 and in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715, the following principles of law with regard to section 27 of the Evidence Act were enunciated:
1. The term ‘fact’, employed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act, embraces within its fold, both the physical object as well as the mental element in relation thereto.
2. The important condition of the said provision is that only ‘so much of the information’ as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded.
3. The expressions ‘so much of the information’, as employed in the said provision, refer to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery.
4. The extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate.
5. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of the information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part; and that part only, which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered.
See Also : Anoop Singh Vs. State [Delhi High Court, 12-05-2017]
In Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor, reported as AIR 1947 PC 67 and in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715, the following principles of law with regard to section 27 of the Evidence Act were enunciated:
1. The term ‘fact’, employed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act, embraces within its fold, both the physical object as well as the mental element in relation thereto.
2. The important condition of the said provision is that only ‘so much of the information’ as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded.
3. The expressions ‘so much of the information’, as employed in the said provision, refer to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery.
4. The extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate.
5. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of the information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part; and that part only, which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered.
See Also : Anoop Singh Vs. State [Delhi High Court, 12-05-2017]
Comments
Post a Comment