“Recovery Evidence” Under Section 27 Of The Evidence Act- Questions & Answers By Justice V Ramkumar [Part-II]

Q.11 Whether a statement by the accused that the weapon discovered was (“the weapon with which he committed murder”), will fall under Section 27 which contains the words “whether it amounts to a confession or not” ?. Ans. No. The bracketed portion of the statement is not admissible in evidence. In para 10 of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 – Sir John Beaumont, it is observed that while an “information” supplied by a person in custody that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” will fall under Section 27 but, if to the above statement regarding the “knife” the words be added “with which I stabbed A” those words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant. In para 18 of Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 765 = 2022 KHC 6440 – Uday U. Lalit, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha - JJ, it was observed as follows:- Coming to the instant case and going by the principle and the illustration highlighted by the Privy Council, out of the statement of accused No.1, only the following portion except the words printed in "italics" would be admissible and can be marked in evidence: "…..If I am taken there, I will show the spot where we committed murder, and we will show the place where we have thrown the knife and the rod. And we will show the shop in which we sold the jewelleries." The expression "where we committed murder" must not come on record.” Such a statement does not lead upto the production of the property because the information should relate distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. (Vide – Prabhoo v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1113 = 1963 (2) Cri.L.J. 182 – 3 Judges - S. K. Das, A. K. Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah - JJ – (Para 9 – Held that the statement by the accused that the axe was one with which the murder was committed was not a statement which lead to any discovery of a fact within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.); Bhika v. R. AIR 1943 Bombay 458 – Sir John Beaumont who took the same view in Pulikuri Kottaya – AIR 1947 P.C. 67). The words “whether it amounts to a confession or not” in Section 27 can only take in those cases where the “possession” or “concealment” of an object, itself constitute the gist of the offence charged. (Vide end of para 11 of Pulikuri Kottaya.) Eg:- Cases where the offender admits “possession” or “concealment” of a “prohibited firearm” or “explosive” or “narcotic drug”, may itself amount to an offence if the said admission is inseparable from the rest of the admissible portion of the disclosure statement. The inculpatory parts of the statement are also admissible provided only that they distinctly relate to the fact discovered. (Vide State of H.P. v. Jeet Singh (1999) 4 SCC 370 = AIR 1999 SC 1293 - K. T. Thomas, S. S. Mohammed Quadri - JJ.) Merely because the property is described as “looted property” in the confessional statement, it would not render the statement inadmissible. (vide para 14 of Sanjay @ Kaka v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2001) 3 SCC 190 = AIR 2001 SC 979 - K. T. Thomas, R. P. Sethi - JJ.) In the light of the above decision in Sanjay @ Kaka the observation in para 9 of Joseph v. State of Kerala 1997 KHC 297 = 1997 Cri.L.J. 4289 - N. Dhinakar – J, that the information by the accused “if I am taken to the place I will show the man to whom I had given the necklace” which merely explains the material thing discovered is not admissible, does not lay down the law correctly. NOTES BY THE AUTHOR: In Ayyappan v. State of Kerala 2004 (3) KLT 254 = 2005 Cri.L.J. 57, Justice Basant had held that Joseph (Supra – 1997 Cri.L.J. 4289) was wrongly decided since it was contrary to the verdict of the Division Bench in Raveendran v. State of Kerala 1989 (2) KLJ 534 – S. Padmanabhan, P. K. Shamsuddin – JJ. Q.12 The accused in a theft case while in the custody of the police gives the following statement:- “I sold the gold chain and gold ear studs which I had stolen from the house of Ajit Varma of Karol Bhag Delhi at Zaveri Jewellery, Chandni Chouk. If I am taken there I will show the person to whom the above ornaments were sold”. Pursuant to the said statement the accused leads the police party to the above jewellery shop from where the ornaments are recovered. Whether or not the above confession made by the accused is admissible in its entirety under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act in view of the subsequent recovery of the ornaments ?. Ans. No. That part of the statement which says that those ornaments were stolen by the accused is not admissible under Sec. 27. The statement can be split up into its components in order to separate the admissible portion from the inadmissible portion. (Vide para 16 of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 - Wright, Simonds, Uthwatt, John Beaumont – JJ - In that ...

“Recovery Evidence” Under Section 27 Of The Evidence Act- Questions & Answers By Justice V Ramkumar [Part-II]

Justice V. Ram Kumar

Tags