Section 27 IEA - Disclosure Statement; All you need to know PDF

Preview

Summary

In this topic, following sub topics are discussed
Underlying principles/reasons.
NATURE AND SCOPE
Constitutional Validity of S. 27 IEA
essential ingredient of the section
Some important things you must know
Case Laws...

Description

SECTION 27 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT –Advocates Johny Goyal, Shiwani Thakur and Salil Goel

27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. - 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. SYNOPSIS (a) Underlying principles/reasons. 

It is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted.



The basic idea embedded in S. 27 is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.

(b) NATURE AND SCOPE 

In order that this section may apply the prosecution must establish that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him. The discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.



The information becomes admissible only to the extent of the part leading to the discovery of a fact.



The information given by an accused person to a police-officer leading to the discovery of a fact which may or may not prove incriminating has been made admissible in evidence by the section unless compulsion has been used in which case it will be an infringement of Article 20(3) of the Constitution (State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808 )



Where the fact is discovered not at the instance of the accused but on the basis of information supplied by him, the Supreme Court said that such information is admissible so long as it is the immediate and proximate cause of discovery. The fact that the informant accused was not taken to the spot of recovery would have no bearing on admissibility but it might be one of the aspects that goes into evaluation of the particular piece of evidence. State (NCT) of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820

(c) Constitutional Validity of S. 27 IEA 

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808

o

It must, therefore, be held that the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not violative of Article 20(3), unless compulsion had been used in obtaining the information.



State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhaya AIR 1960 SC 1125 o

The fact that the principle is restricted to persons in custody will not by itself be a ground for holding that there is an attempted hostile discrimination under Article 14, because the rule of admissibility of evidence is not extended to a possible, but an uncommon or abnormal class of cases.

(d) Essentials of Section 27 IEA (i) it is a proviso to the previous sections. (ii) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue; (iii) The fact must have been discovered in consequence of some information received from the accused whether the said information amounts to a confession or not; (iv) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence; (v) He must be in custody of a police officer; (vi) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed; (vii) That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be proved (e) Analysis of Section 27 IEA 1. The section starts with the word “provided”. 

Section 27 IEA is a proviso to Section 26 and 25 IEA



The Section seems to be a proviso only to Section 25 and 26 IEA and not to S. 24 IEA in view of Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. o

Ashish Jain v. Makrand Singh AIR 2019 SC 546

o

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263

o

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808

2. The section says that if a fact is discovered in consequence of information given by an “accused person in police custody”, i.e. the person giving the information must be an accused person and he must be in police custody at the time of giving information to the police. 

Fact is discovered in consequence of information

o

immediate and proximate cause of discovery

o

the impact on recovery made prior to the statement of accused

o

if the police personnel already knew about the whereabouts of the object discovered

o

If the police officer does not seek to prove information supplied to him by the accused leading to discovery u/s 27, whether Section 27 will still apply?



The person giving the information must be an accused person o

The expression "accused person" describes the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding.



Must be in police custody at the time of giving information to the police o

State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhaya AIR 1960 SC 1125

o

Can the person released on bail be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery?

3. What is the scope of the clause “so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered”? 

The older view was as decided in Athappa Goundan, re ILR 1937 Mad 695.



This case was overruled by Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67.



Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 483.



Fact’ In Section 27 Of Evidence Act Not Limited To ‘Actual Physical Material Object’ And Includes ‘Mental Awareness Of The Accused As To Its Existence



What is the relevance of the place where the articles are found

4. ‘WHETHER IT AMOUNTS TO A CONFESSION OR NOT’ meaning. 

Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 104

(f) SOME IMPORTANT CASE LAWS: 

Relevance of discovery made u/s 27 of an object which has no relevance to connect it with the commission of crime? Keshav v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 284



Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403



Impact on Section 27 statement in case the panch witnesses turn hostile? Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657



Possession of item discovered is not necessary. Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216



Prabhoo v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1113



Udai Bhan v. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1116

(a) Underlying principles/reasons. 

This section is founded on the principle that even though the evidence relating to confessional or other statements made by a person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer is tainted and, therefore, inadmissible, if the truth of the information given by him is assured by the discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be untainted and is, therefore, declared provable insofar as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered.



It is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted. It comes into operation only: o

(1) If and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from an accused person in police custody; and

o 

(2) If the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered.

Doctrine of Confirmation by subsequent events.— o

In the light of section 27, whatever information given by the accused, in consequence of which a fact is discovered, only would be admissible in evidence, whether such information amounts to a confession or not.

o

The basic idea embedded under this section is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.

o

The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true.

o

The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information.

o

In Bodhraj v. State of J&K (2002) 8 SCC 45 

The Hon’ble SC observed; the basic idea embedded in S. 27 is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. (b) NATURE AND SCOPE



Jaffer Hussein Dastagir v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 1934 : o

The Supreme Court has held that in order that this section may apply the prosecution must establish that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him. The discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.



Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 The Supreme Court has held that this section controls sections 24, 25 and 26.



The information becomes admissible only to the extent of the part leading to the discovery of a fact. The facts discovered should be such which are in exclusive knowledge of the accused and none else. If the Investigating Officer, after recording information under section 27 of the Act from an accused in his custody, recovers some incriminating article from an open place accessible to all and sundry, the information and the discovery lose significance. Likewise, if the fact discovered is known to the Investigating Officer in advance, then the discovery made in furtherance of the subsequent information recorded under section 27 at the instance of the accused would be inconsequential.



State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu, AIR 1961 SC 1808 o

The information given by an accused person to a police-officer leading to the discovery of a fact which may or may not prove incriminating has been made admissible in evidence by the section unless compulsion has been used in which case it will be an infringement of Article 20(3) of the Constitution



State (NCT) of Delhi v Navjot Sandhu, AIR 2005 SC 3820 o

Where the fact is discovered not at the instance of the accused but on the basis of information supplied by him, the Supreme Court said that such information is admissible so long as it is the immediate and proximate cause of discovery. The fact that the informant accused was not taken to the spot of recovery would have no bearing on admissibility but it might be one of the aspects that goes into evaluation of the particular piece of evidence.

o

Signing of the information statement by the accused in contravention of section 162(1), CrPC, has been held by the Supreme Court to be not detracting from its admissibility to the extent to which it is otherwise relevant.

o

Simultaneous disclosure by more than one accused also does not render it inadmissible but it may go towards evaluation. (c) Constitutional Validity of S. 27 IEA

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhaya AIR 1960 SC 1125

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808.— The accused was convicted for the offence of murder. One of the items of evidence against him was a statement under Section 27 IEA which led to the discovery of firearms used in committing the crime.

The Supreme Court held: The information given by an accused person to a police officer leading to the discovery of a fact which may or may not prove incriminatory has been made admissible in evidence by Section 27. If it is not incriminatory of the person giving the information, the question of its contravening Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not arise. It can arise only when it is of an incriminatory character so far as the giver of the information is concerned. If the self-incriminatory information has been given by an accused person without any threat that will be admissible in evidence and that will not be hit by the provisions of clause of Article 20 of the Constitution for the reason that there has been no compulsion. It must, therefore, be held that the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not within the prohibition aforesaid, unless compulsion had been used in obtaining the information.

State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhaya AIR 1960 SC 1125 The section says that if a fact is discovered in consequence of information given by an “accused person in police custody”, i.e. the person giving the information must be an accused person and he must be in police custody at the time of giving information to the police. Why should this difference have been made between accused persons in police custody and accused persons not in police custody?

If an accused person not in police custody gives

If an accused person in police custody gives

information to the police

information to the police







if it is a confession, Section 25 operates as a bar 

if it is a mere confession, or a mere statement

to its reception;

to the police, Section 25 IEA and Section 162

even if a fact is discovered in consequence of such

CrPC, respectively, would make it inadmissible.

information, the section would still be a bar 

But, if a fact is discovered in consequence of

because Section 27 would not apply as he was not

such information, Section 27 would apply and

in police custody;

the portion of the statement mentioned in the

if it is not a confession but a mere statement,

section can be taken into consideration.

Section 162 CrPC would operate as a bar; and 

in case of (c) even if a fact is discovered, Section 162 CrPC would still be a bar because Section 27 cannot apply, the accused not being in police custody.



Section 27 IEA is an exception to S. 162 CrPC

If a law makes an unreasonable classification, the law would be void as being opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India which prohibits discrimination. But reasonable classification would not be discrimination. So if persons are divided into classes so that different rules of law apply to them, there must be good reasons for such classification.  That being so, is there a good reason for dividing accused persons into two classes, those in police custody and those not in police custody, with different rules of law applicable to them? This question arose in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125.— In this case, the respondent was convicted by the trial court on the charge of murder. The court found that there was altercation and quarrel between the respondent and the deceased; that the respondent borrowed a gandasa; that next morning he was seen hurrying towards a tank and taking a bath; that he absconded thereafter; that the dead body was found on that very morning; that when he was arrested two days later, he offered to produce the gandasa to the police; that he took them to the tank and that he fetched the gandasa from out of the water. In the High Court, it was contended that his statement to the police was inadmissible because Section 27 was void and ultra vires in that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, since it discriminated between persons in police custody and those not in such custody. The High Court accepted the contention and finding the rest of the evidence insufficient acquitted the accused. In appeal to the Supreme Court, the majority of the judges convicted the accused. SC held: If Section 27 renders information admissible on the ground that the discovery of a fact pursuant to a statement made by a person in custody is a guarantee of the truth of the statement made by him, and the legislature has chosen to make on that ground an exception to the rule prohibiting proof of such statement, that rule is not to be deemed unconstitutional, because of the possibility of abnormal instances to which the legislature might have, but has not extended the rule. The principle of admitting evidence of statements made by a person giving information leading to the discovery of facts which may be used in evidence against him is manifestly reasonable. The fact that the principle is restricted to persons in custody will not by itself be a ground for holding that there is an attempted hostile discrimination because the rule of admissibility of evidence is not extended to a possible, but an uncommon or abnormal class of cases. The dissenting opinion, however, points out: The proviso introduced by Act 8 of 1869 was in pari materia with the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act with the difference that in the earlier section the phrase ‘a person accused of any offence’ and the phrase ‘in the custody of a police officer’ were connected by the disjunctive ‘or’. The result was that no discrimination was made between a person in custody or out of custody making a confession to a police officer. Section 150 of the Code before amendment also, though it was couched in different terms, was similar in effect. It follows that, at any rate till the year 1872, the intention of the legislature was to provide for all confessions made by persons to the police whether in custody of the police or not. Can it be said that in 1872 the legislature excluded confessions or admissions

made by a person not in custody to a police officer from the operation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act on the ground that such cases would be rare? … The omission appears to be rather by accident than by design. In the circumstances it is not right to speculate and hold that the legislature consciously excluded from the operation of Section 27 of the Act accused not in custody on the ground that they were a few in number. … The only solution is for the legislature to amend the section suitably and not for this Court to discover some imaginary ground and sustain the classification.

(d) Essentials of Section 27 IEA Conditions necessary for application of Section 27: The conditions necessary for application of this provision are: (i) it is a proviso to the previous sections. (ii) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue;

(iii) The fact must have been discovered in consequence of some information received from the accused whether the said information amounts to a confession or not; (iv) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence; (v) He must be in custody of a police officer; (vi) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed; (vii) That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be proved.

Conditions to be satisfied for statement to be made admissible under Section 27 In order that the section may apply the prosecution must establish that the information given by the appellant led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him. It is evident that the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused. The essential ingredient of the section is that : Firstly, The information given by the accused must lead to the discove...