Section 27 of Evidence Act: How much of information received from accused may be proved : When any fact is
depose deposed d to as discov discovere ered d in conseq consequen uence ce of inform informati ation on receiv received ed from from a person person accused accused of any offence offence in the custody custody of a police police officer officer,, so much much inform informati ation on (whether it amounts to confession or not) as relates distinctly to the fact therey discovered, may e proved!
Secti Section on 27 is foun founde ded d on the prin princip ciple le that that if the the conf confess essio ion n of the the accus accused ed is supported by a discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extorted. The section is quite apparently laid out as a proviso or an exception to the section 26 which deals with confessions in police custody and other involuntary confessions. Thus it seems that the intention of the legislature is that all obections to the validity of that part of the statement are washed off which leads to the discovery of an article connected with the crime. !hether such a statement proceeds out of inducements, threats or torture are absolutely immaterial.
This provision is liable of abuse by the police officers. !ith a view to finish of cases, police officers can subect the accused to torture and then plant evidence so as to proclaim the accused as guilty. This provision should be amended. The discovery of fact as purported by this section should be made in front of two witnesses so that there could be no planting of evidence done. This should be included in substantive law, irrespective of the fact that it exists in procedural law."lso, the statement of the accused which has lead to the discovery of a relevant fact would be invalid if it had been ta#en because of extortion, threat or torture. The accused should sign a document stating whether any fact discovered is not due to extortion or threat. The accused can be induced only if it is a valid and legal inducement.
"fter all these steps, the accused gives a statement which leads to the discovery of a relevant fact, then the whole statement should be made relevant rather than only the statement which lead to the discovery of the fact. The accused should, after ma#ing the statement and the police discovering the relevant fact stated in the statement, again sign a document purporting that he has made the signature and seen what has been discovered from his statement. " $istrict %udge&'etropolitan %udge should be present as in when the accused signs the statement.
(t should be made mandatory that all these provisions are read out to the accused as soon as he is arrested. This would help #nowing the accused of his rights and he wouldn)t be unaware and act accordingly.
Constitutionality of Section 27
(ndian *vidence "ct was written before the +onstitution of (ndia and "rticle 2-/ of the constitution says that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This article seemingly made Section 27 unconstitutional. S+ considered this issue in the case of Nisa Sree vs State of Orissa AIR 1954, and held that it is not violative of "rticle 2-/. " confession may or may not lead to the discovery of an incriminating fact. (f the discovered fact is non incriminatory, there is no issue and if it is self0 incriminatory, it is admissible if the information is given by the accused without any threat.
Requirements n!er "#e Section 0
The conditions necessary for the application of section 27 are1 . The fact must have been discovered in the consequence of the information received from the accused.
2. The person giving the information must be accused of an offence.
. 3e must be in custody of a police officer.
4. That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.
5. efore the statement is proved, somebody must depose that articles were discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused. (n the example given above, before the statement of the accused could be proved, somebody, such a sub0inspector, must depose that in consequence of the given information given by the accused, some facts were discovered.
6. The fact discovered must be a relevant fact, that is, to say it must relate to the commission of the crime in question.
Case Stu!y
(n $an!u Ran% &allu $atil v' State of (a#aras#tra 1, it was held by Supreme +ourt that section 27 of evidence act was enacted as proviso to the provisions of sections of Section 25 and 26, which imposed a complete ban on admissibility of any confession made by accused either to police or at any one while in police custody. onetheless the ban would be lifted if the statement is distinctly related to discovery of facts. The obect of ma#ing provision in section 27 was to permit a certain portion of statement made by an accused to 8olice 9fficer admissible in evidence whether or not such statement is confessional or non confessional.
)AC"S
There was a dispute between "l and the father of the deceased over some landed property. The said dispute made them enemies. This is the bac#ground of the occurrence. !hile deceased :amdas, and his brother 8!2 arayan were proceeding to their village for ta#ing lunch around . 8.'. on 2;.6.;2 the assailants went in a eep and stopped ust near the place of occurrence. "ll the assailants alighted from the eep. "l, "2 and " had a gun each with them. "4 and "6 had either a #nife or a sword with them. (t is unnecessary to mention about the weapons possessed by other persons. The assailants who were armed with guns opened fire at the deceased as well as 8!2. The deceased was then a few feet ahead of 8!2 and both were running up presumably to escape from the chasing assailants. oth of them sustained serious gun shot inuries, though 8!2 did not succumb to them. ut the deceased fell down at the spot and died. Seeing this the assailants too# to their heals leaving the eep remaining at the spot as a mute remnant of the acts done by them. ISS*S RAIS*+
!hile dealing with the facts of this case we may point out that the trial court convicted "l0Shan#ar
1 APPEAL (CRL.) 194 OF 2000
(8+. Trial +ourt acquitted "408andurang >alu 8atil and "60%anardhan Shaligram 8atil. ut the 3igh +ourt in the impugned udgment reversed the acquittal of "4 and "6 and convicted them under Section 26 read withSection 4; of the (8+ and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The 3igh +ourt confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on " l and " but in the matter of "2 0 a=ir abu Shei#h, the 3igh +ourt raised up the conviction from Section 7 to Section 2 read withSection 4; of the (8+ and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The convicted " l and " have filed special leave petitions in this +ourt but they were dismissed by this +ourt.
AR(*N"S- The prosecution examined four persons as eye witnesses, they are
8!2 to 8!5. The trial court and the 3igh +ourt placed reliance on the testimony of 8!2 arayan and 8! %anu hoir. !e have absolutely no doubt that 8!2 arayan who was inured and seen the occurrence and hence he was competent to say who were all the assailants. 3e also vouchsafed the presence of 8! %anu hoir. !e are not disposed to disbelieve the testimony of those two witnesses as they were relied upon by the two +ourts. 'r. S: +hitnis, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the version of the eye witnesses is inconsistent with the inuries noted by the doctors. "ccording to the version of the eye witnesses the deceased was running forward while the assailants shot him from behind but the fire arm inuries sustained by the deceased could well have been shot face0to0face. This aspect is not enough to doubt the correctness of the testimony of the eye witnesses, for, it is quite possible as per the reflex action the running deceased would have turned bac# either to see whether he has gone out of the range of penil or to #now the nearness of it. The mere fact that 8!2 eye witness said that the deceased was running forward and the assailants shot them from behind cannot rule but the possibility of such twirling of the deceased when the guns were fired. ?earned counsel then contended that the 3igh +ourt had gone wrong in relying on the evidence of 8!@0$y. S.8. who said that when "2 was arrested and interrogated a gun was disintered pursuant to the information supplied by him. (t is on the said aspect that the $ivision ench of the 3igh +ourt considered the ratio in 8uli#uri
>ottaya. !hat 8! @ said in the +ourt is that the statement made by "2 had been recorded in *xh. ; memorandum. !e have noticed from the said memorandum the following statement of "2 as recorded therein 10 A( have #ept the fire arm concealed behind the old house in a heap of woodA. The fact discovered by 8! @ is certainly not the gun. The fact discovered is that "2 had concealed the gun -article no. 5&2/ behind the old house under a heap of wood. (t was the same gun with which "2 had fired at 8!2 and that aspect has been proved with the help of other evidence. 'r. S: +hitnis, made an alternative endeavour to show that the act committed by "2 can at the worst amount only to the offence under Section 7 of the (8+ because 8!2 had not succumbed to the inuries. !hen "2 along with other assailants alighted from the eep together and chased the deceased and 8!2 together and fired their lethal weapons together, the common intention shared by "2 with other assailants -"l and "/ looms large, albeit the fact that the bullet of his fire arm could reach only upto the body of 8!2 who was not destined to die. !hat " and " had done was certainly with the common intention shared by "20a=ir abu also. 9f course, the 3igh +ourt has convicted him under Section 2 with the help of Section 4; of the (8+. That error has to be corrected by us. !e, therefore, confirm the conviction and sentence passed on "20a=ir abu Shei#h under Section 2 with the aid of 4 of the (8+ and dismiss +r. "ppeal o. @;&2. ut the position of "4 and "6 is different. Though they had #nives with them they had not chosen to do anything. *ven after the deceased fell down they did not move forward to inflict even a scratch on him. They did not do any harm to 8!2. There is nothing to indicate that they #new about the design of the other assailants. They were acquitted by the trial court. The view ta#en by the trial court on the facts of the case is reasonable and hence it was impermissible for the appellate court to interfere with the acquittal. .+*(*N"
The court, therefore, allow +rl. "ppeal o. ;4&2 and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on "408andurang and "60%anardhan Shaligram 8atil. They are
acquitted. Their bail bond will stand discharged. -" copy of this udgment will be forwarded to the :egistrar of the ombay 3igh +ourt as copies of the impugned udgment were directed to be circulated to all the sessions udges under ombay 3igh +ourt. ow it is necessary to bring this also to the notice of all those sessions udges/.
Some ot#er case la/s
"ulu#ari $ottaya v Emperor 2 the scope of Section 27 was explained by their lordships1
B Section 27 provides one 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 bring Section 27 in operation is that the discovery of fact in consequence of information received from accused must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of the information as related distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. ormally the section is
brought into operation when a person in police custody
produces from some place of concealment, some obect e.g. a dead body, a weapon or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.C
Section 27 an! Narco Analysis, $oly%ra0# an! *A$ "ests
(n Selvi v! State of $ainata#a %, it was held that no individual should be forcibly subected to any of the techniques -namely, narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the rain *lectrical "ctivation 8rofile -*"8/ test/ in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. $oing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. The +ourt left room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal ustice provided
2 AIR 1947 PC 67: 74 IA 65: 48 Cr Lj 533 3 (2010) 7 SCC 263: AIR 2010 SC 1974: 2010 AIR SCW 3011
that certain safeguards are in place. *ven when the subect has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subect does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. 3owever, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted in accordance with section 27 of the *vidence "ct, @72 but the same should be supported with the guidelines given by the ational 3uman :ights +ommission -
Section 27 an! Article 2 3 3Self6incrimination
(n State of &omay v! $athi $alu 'had , it was urged that section 27 was ultra rires against the protection guaranteed under "rticle 2-/ against testimonial compulsion. The Supreme +ourt of (ndia in >athi >alu 9ghadDs case held that compulsionnot being inherent or implicit the fact of the information having been received from a person in custody, the contention that section 27 of the *vidence "ct necessarily infringes "rticle 2-/ of the +onstitution cannot be accepted. Sinha, +.%., observed that whether compulsion was used or not Bwill be question of fact in each to be determined by the +ourt on weighing the facts and circumstances disclosed in the evidence before it.C
4 (1963) 1 SCJ 195: AIR 1961 SC 1808: (1961) 2 Cr Lj 856
