26 March 2023 4:07 AM GMT
Read this in continuation of the Article “Section 27” Of The Evidence Act And The Verdict In “Pulukuri Kottaya” Continue To Elude The Comprehension Of Many Judges At All Levels"If the “information” to be received from an accused person in the custody of a Police Officer should be regarding a...
If the said “information” received from the accused regarding the “fact discovered” is to be deposed to during trial,
If consequent on such information given by the accused he need not personally lead the police party to the said place of concealment (as held in para 24 of Raveendran v. State 1989 (2) KLJ 534 (DB) and para 142 of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600),
If in law, the giving of the disclosure statement by the accused and the recovery of the weapon need not be heard or seen by any public witness (as held in para 70 of S. C. Bahri v. State of Bihar AIR 1994 SC 2420; Para 25 of State of H. P. v. Jeet Singh AIR 1999 SC 1293; Para 21 of Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2003) 12 SCC 199; Para 22 of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652 followed by a three-Judge Bench in para 439 of Mukesh v. NCT of Delhi AIR 2017 SC 2161).
If in law, the above proceedings need not be reduced to writing in the form of a Panchanama or a Mahazar since this is not search of a “closed place” falling under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C (as was held in para 19 of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652) ,
If the resultant recovery of the weapon amounts to “confirmation by subsequent event” of the “fact discovered” (as held in Bodhraj v. State of J & K Air 2002 SC 3164 and other verdicts),
THEN MY HUMBLE OPINION IS THAT –