Four Conditions To Invoke Section 27 Of Indian Evidence Act : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court (on January 03), in a crucial judgment with respect to section 27 of the Evidence Act, reiterated the three conditions to invoke this provision. While doing so, the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti relied upon Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra., (1976) 1 SCC 828. The first condition is the discovery of a fact. This fact should be relevant in consequence of information received from an accused person. The second condition is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. The rationale is that a fact already known to the police would fall foul and not meet this condition. The third condition is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody(regarding police custody, the Court clarified that it is not just custody after formal arrest and will include any sort of restraint or surveillance by the police). The last but the most important condition is that only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. “The word 'distinctly' is used to limit and define the scope of the information and means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly' or 'unmistakably'. Only that part of the information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible,” the Court explained. Additionally, it must be noted that, in the present case, the Court clarified that discovery of fact also includes knowledge of the accused person. Thus, this fact discovery cannot be just equated to the object found. The see findings were supported by precedents like State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru., (2005) 11 SCC 600. “However, we must clarify that Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as held in these judgments, does not lay down the principle that discovery of a fact is to be equated to the object produced or found. The discovery of the fact resulting in recovery of a physical object exhibits knowledge or mental awareness of the person accused of the offence as to the existence of the physical object at the particular place. Accordingly, discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.,” the Court said. Apart from this, the Court also delved into the interpretation of the expression 'custody' used in this Section. The Court held that 'custody' does not mean formal custody and includes any kind of restriction, restraint, or even surveillance by the police. The Apex Court made these observations while hearing a criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Perumal), who was convicted for the murder of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth. While the appellant was detained in another case relating to the murder of Rajaram (Rajinikanth's father), he made a disclosure statement concerning the murder of Rajinikanth. Importantly, the police, accordingly, proceeded on the leads and recovered the parts of the deceased. Thus, the appellant was arrested based on this disclosure statement. Consequently, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the murder of Rajnikanth under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court affirmed this conviction and his sentence of life imprisonment. Against this backdrop, the matter travelled to the Apex Court. The Court, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, affirmed the conviction of the appellant. The Court marked that the judgment of acquittal would not qualify as relevant and of evidentiary value to acquit the appellant.Other reports about the judgment can be read here.Case Title: PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE., Diary No.- 4802 - 2018. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 8Click here to read the judgment

Four Conditions To Invoke Section 27 Of Indian Evidence Act : Supreme Court Explains

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags