What is Section 27 of the Evidence Act?

 Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates an exception to the general rule that prohibits confessions made by an accused person to police officers while in custody. This section allows for the admissibility of information received from an accused person in police custody if it leads to the discovery of a fact related to the crime.

Text of Section 27

The section reads: "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".

Purpose and Underlying Principle

Exception to Sections 25 and 26

Section 27 serves as an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, which generally exclude confessions made under inducement, threat, or in police custody from being admitted as evidence. While these sections establish protection against self-incrimination and abuse of power by police authority, Section 27 provides a specific exception.

Doctrine of Confirmation by Subsequent Events

The basic idea embedded in Section 27 is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The principle underlying this section is that if the information provided by the accused results in the discovery of a relevant fact, it lends credibility to the confession and indicates its truthfulness. This provision acts as a safeguard against coerced confessions, as the truth of the confession is validated by the subsequent discovery of evidence.

Essential Requirements for Section 27

For Section 27 to apply, the following conditions must be met:

Discovery of Fact

• There should be discovery of a fact that is relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person

• The fact discovered must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates

No Prior Knowledge to Police

• The discovery of such a fact must be deposed to, meaning the fact should not already be known to the police

Custody Requirement

• At the time of receipt of information, the accused should be in the custody of the police

• The accused's custody is key for admissibility under Section 27

Distinct Relationship

• Only so much information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible

• The information provided must distinctly relate to the fact discovered

What Constitutes "Discovery of Fact"

The term "discovery of fact" encompasses not only the object found but also the location from which it is recovered and the accused's knowledge of its existence. The concept of "fact" mentioned in Section 27 is not limited to physical objects alone but also includes essential psychological or mental facts that may be directly relevant to the case.

However, information regarding the past use of the object produced is not considered relevant to its discovery and may not be admissible under Section 27.

Admissibility Conditions

Distinct Relationship Requirement

Only those portions of the statement which are 'distinctly' related to the discovery of fact will be permitted to be proven. The word 'distinctly' means directly, indubitably, strictly, or unmistakably, referring to the information provided by the accused that directly contributed to the discovery.

Voluntary Nature

The confession must be made voluntarily, meaning the person must not have been coerced or threatened into making the confession. The confession must provide information that was not previously known to the police and that led to the recovery of evidence or the identification of witnesses.

Landmark Case: Pulukuri Kottaya v Emperor (1947)

This case established several important principles:

• Section 27 provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by Section 26 and enables certain statements made by a person in police custody to be proved

• The condition necessary to activate Section 27 is the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from the accused

• Statements made by the accused that directly lead to the discovery of a fact are admissible, but any self-incriminatory or narrative statements that do not directly relate to the discovery must be rigorously excluded

• For example, if an accused states "I have buried the property stolen by me in the field. I will show it," the admissible part is "I have buried the property in my field. I will show it," while the inadmissible part is "stolen by me"

Practical Application

Typical Scenarios

Section 27 typically comes into play when an accused person in police custody reveals information that leads to the recovery of crucial evidence such as a weapon, stolen goods, or a dead body related to the crime they are accused of.

Proving the Discovery

To establish the discovery under Section 27, the investigating officer must depose before the court regarding:

• Information given by the accused

• Discovery of the place, object, and the accused's knowledge

• Disclosure statement of the accused

• Proof of the tangible aspects, such as the place and the object

Documentation Requirements

The prosecution should aim to present written records documenting only the portion of the accused's statement that led to the discovery of the evidence. Relying solely on oral statements, without corroborating written records, can be risky and unreliable for the prosecution's case.

Section 27 thus represents a carefully balanced provision that allows for the admission of crucial evidence while maintaining safeguards against forced confessions and police misconduct.

Print Page