LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act protect against selfincrimination and police misconduct, disallowing confessions made to the police without a magistrate, with Section 27 allowing an exception for confessions leading to factual discoveries. 
All conditions of Section 27 must be met for the evidence to be admissible. 
Section 27 allows the admission of accused persons' information related to a discovered fact, revealing essential truths in criminal investigations. 
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, enacted in 1872, stands as a testament to the evolution of criminal jurisprudence in India. Its historical context reveals a need for a legal framework to govern the admissibility of statements made by an accused during police custody. 
The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 stands as a cornerstone in the legal framework of India, shaping the rules and procedures related to the admissibility of evidence in courts. Enacted during the British colonial era, this comprehensive legislation aimed to streamline the often-intricate process of presenting evidence during trials. 
The need for a systematic approach to evidence arose from the complexities faced by the British legal system in India. Before the enactment of the Indian Evidence Act, evidentiary practices were diverse and often influenced by local customs and traditions. This diversity led to confusion and inconsistency in legal proceedings, prompting the British colonial rulers to introduce a unified law governing evidence. 
Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act provide safeguards to individuals. They protect against self-incrimination and potential police misconduct by declaring that confession made to the police without a magistrate present are not allowed as evidence in court. This means that if someone confesses to the police while in their custody and without the involvement of a magistrate, that confession cannot be used in a court of law.  
Section 27 allows for an exception, permitting the inclusion of confessions that lead to the revelation of facts. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states, 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. 
In other words, "If a person accused of a crime tells the police something, and that information leads to finding a specific fact, whether it's a confession or not, that part of the information related to the discovered fact can be used as evidence." 
In the Asar Mohd. v. State of U.P [2019 12 SCC 253] case, the Supreme Court stated that the idea of "fact" in Section 27 is not just about physical things; it also includes important mental or psychological details relevant to the case. 
This provision focuses on the admissibility of information obtained during police custody, acknowledging its potential relevance in discovering facts crucial to an investigation. 
Legal Interpretations of Section 27 
Courts require a clear link between the accused's information and the discovery, allowing only the directly relevant part of the information to be admissible under Section 27. 
For Section 27 to apply, courts insist on the accused's voluntary information, excluding coerced or involuntary confessions. 

Section 27 allows the admissibility of any information, not just confessions, if it distinctly relates to the discovered fact, emphasizing the crucial link between the information and the subsequent discovery. 
Courts maintain limited admissibility under Section 27, allowing only directly relevant information. 

Conditions for Admissibility under Section 27 
In any legal proceeding, it is essential to establish a factual connection between information given by the accused during police custody and the discovery of related facts. This requirement ensures that the evidence obtained through such information is reliable and can be safely presented in court if deemed true. However, the specific nature of the discovered fact to which the information must relate depends on the scope of admissible information. The key focus is on the causal link between the information and the subsequent findings, ensuring the reliability of evidence. 
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows the admissibility of information provided by an accused in custody if it leads to the discovery of a fact. Several conditions determine the admissibility under this section: 

• Accused in Custody 
 The information must be provided by a person accused of an offense and in the   custody of a police officer.
• Information Must Be Voluntary 
The information must be given voluntarily by the accused. Coerced or involuntary confessions are not admissible under Section 27. In the case of Bhagwan Swarup vs. State of Maharashtra (1965) [ALL SC 1963 March] ,  Bombay High Court stressed that the voluntary nature of the disclosure is crucial. Any involuntary statement, even if leading to a discovery, would be inadmissible under Section 27.In Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [1947 PC], The Privy Council held that for evidence to be admissible under Section 27, the information must be given voluntarily and not under any inducement. 
• Reliability of Information 
In Babulal v. State of Maharashtra (2010),  Bombay High Court held that the information provided by the accused must be reliable, and the subsequent discovery must establish the veracity of the information.
• Distinct Connection to the Fact Discovered 
The information must distinctly relate to the fact discovered. Only the part of the information that directly leads to the discovery is admissible. In the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad) [1961 AIR 1808, 1962 SCR (3) 10] The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a distinct connection between the information and the fact discovered, ensuring that only the part of the information directly leading to the discovery is admissible. 
In State of Maharashtra v/s Damu [2000 6 SCC 269] court reiterated that for information to be admissible, there must be a clear nexus between the information and the subsequent discovery 
• Factual Discovery Resulting from Information 
The information should lead to the discovery of a fact. This fact must be relevant to the case and not already known to the police  In the landmark case of State of Punjab v. Sajjan Singh [1964 AIR 464 1964 SCR (4) 630], court clarified that there should be a causal connection between the information provided by the accused and the subsequent discovery, emphasizing that only the part of the information leading to actual discoveries is admissible. 
Conditions of Section 27 are cumulative, and all must be satisfied for the evidence to be admissible.     
Real-world examples where Section 27 played a decisive role in criminal Investigation    
Section 27 in the Indian Evidence Act is vital in solving crimes, exposing hidden facts during trials. For instance, if an accused person provides details to the police about a missing object's location, and the police find it based on that information, Section 27 lets the court consider these details, even if not a full confession, highlighting its real impact in uncovering truths in criminal cases. 

In the well-known Aarushi Talwar murder case, the accused's helper, Krishna, revealed where the weapon was hidden, and this information was crucial under Section 27. The discovery of the golf club where Krishna said it would be supported the case against the accused and helped in their conviction. 
Similarly, in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination investigation, Section 27 played a crucial role. A key conspirator, Nalini, disclosed the location of a hidden beltbomb, and finding the bomb strengthened the case against those involved, leading to their convictions. 
During the inquiry into the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, Section 27 was invoked. The accused provided statements revealing where they had hidden weapons and explosives, and this information, admissible under Section 27, played a significant role in proving the conspiracy and connecting the accused to the coordinated terrorist attacks. 
In case, a notorious serial killer, information provided by a person during the investigation about the burial sites of his victims was admissible under Section 27. The recoveries from these locations supported the charges against him, ultimately resulting in his conviction. 
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, made in 1872, has been vital in shaping how crimes are dealt with in India. Its origin reflects the British legal system's challenges in India, leading to a need for a consistent way to present evidence in trials. The Indian Evidence Act aimed to standardize this process. 
Sections 25 and 26 in this law protect against self-incrimination and police misconduct, making confessions without a magistrate present not allowed in court. Section 27, however, allows such confessions if they lead to discovering facts, stressing the need for a clear link between the accused's information and the subsequent discovery. 
Real-life cases like Aarushi Talwar's murder and Rajiv Gandhi's assassination highlight how Section 27 impacts criminal investigations. It has been crucial in uncovering hidden facts, affecting trial results, and contributing to seeking truth and justice. As a key legal tool, Section 27 guides how information from police custody is admitted, ensuring fairness and reliability in India's criminal justice system. 

"Loved reading this piece by Shauktika?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

Category Others, Other Articles by - Shauktika