Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of confessions made by a person accused of an offense while in the custody of a police officer. As a general rule, confessions made in police custody are inadmissible in court due to the risk of coercion and false confessions. However, Section 27 provides an exception to this rule, allowing the admission of confessions that lead to the discovery of facts.
Key Elements of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
-
Information received from a person in custody: The confession must be made by a person who is in the custody of a police officer. This means that the person must be under arrest or otherwise detained by the police.
-
Discovery of facts: The confession must lead to the discovery of facts. This means that the confession must provide information that was not previously known to the police and that led to the recovery of evidence or the identification of witnesses.
-
Distinct relation to the fact discovered: The confession must be directly related to the fact discovered. This means that the information provided in the confession must be specific and relevant to the discovery.
Limitations of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
-
Sole basis for conviction: The confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction. This means that the prosecution must provide additional evidence to support the confession.
-
Confession must be voluntary: The confession must be made voluntarily. This means that the person must not have been coerced or threatened into making the confession.
-
Confession must not be retracted: The person must not have retracted the confession. This means that if the person denies making the confession or claims that it was made under duress, the confession cannot be admitted into evidence.
Judicial Interpretation of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
Over the years, Indian courts have interpreted Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act in various cases, providing further guidance on its application. Some important principles established through judicial interpretation include:
-
The discovery of facts must be a direct consequence of the information received from the accused.
-
The accused’s knowledge of the place where the fact is discovered is relevant.
-
The confession cannot be used to prove the guilt of the accused unless it is corroborated by other evidence.
-
The confession must be made by the accused himself and cannot be attributed to another person.
Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act plays a crucial role in balancing the need to protect the rights of the accused with the pursuit of justice. While it allows for the admission of confessions that lead to the discovery of facts, it also imposes strict safeguards to prevent coerced or false confessions from being used against the accused.
Here are some important case laws related to Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act:
-
Pulukuri Kottayya v. The King-Emperor (1947): This landmark case established the principle that only so much of the information received from the accused as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible under Section 27.
-
Raveendran v. State (1989): The Kerala High Court held that the accused need not personally lead the police party to the place of concealment of the weapon or object. It is sufficient if the information provided by the accused leads to the discovery of the incriminating material.
-
State of Karnataka v. David Rozario (2002): The Supreme Court reiterated that information admissible under Section 27 must come from a person in the custody of a police officer at the time the information is given.
-
Asar Mohd. v. State of U.P (2012): The Supreme Court clarified that the concept of “fact” mentioned in Section 27 is not limited to physical objects but also includes essential psychological or mental facts that may be directly relevant to the case.
-
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of M.P (2023): The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act, which generally prohibit the admission of confessions made by an accused person.
These cases provide valuable insights into the application and interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, highlighting the importance of balancing the need for truth with the protection of the accused’s rights.