Why in news ? Recently justice V Ram kumar has said that there is a popular misconception that the purpose of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is to lift the ban on “confession” made to a Police Officer as imposed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It is not so.

About section 27 of IEA,1972:

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to the rules concerning the admissibility of confessions, particularly confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody, which are generally inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. Section 27 allows for the admissibility of such statements if they lead to the discovery of a fact.

Essentials of Section 27:

Custody of the Accused: The statement must be made by a person who is in police custody. However, the custody must be lawful and should be proven.

Discovery of Fact: The statement must lead to the discovery of some fact, which was previously unknown to the police. The “fact” here refers to something tangible, such as the location of a weapon or a stolen item.

Relevancy of Fact Discovered: The fact discovered should be relevant to the case. This relevancy is determined based on the link between the fact discovered and the crime.

Part of Statement Leading to Discovery: Only that part of the statement which directly leads to the discovery of the fact is admissible. The rest of the statement, which may confess to the crime or other details, remains inadmissible.

Voluntary Nature: Though not explicitly mentioned in Section 27, the courts have interpreted that the statement must be made voluntarily.

Exceptions to Section 27:

Statements Leading to Discoveries Not Incriminating the Accused: If the discovery does not incriminate the accused, it may not be admissible under Section 27.

Non-Tangible Discoveries: If the information provided leads to the discovery of something intangible, such as a motive or a relationship, it may not be covered under Section 27.

Statements Made Under Duress or Coercion: If the statement is made under coercion or duress, it may not be admissible, even if it leads to a discovery.

Recent Case Law and Supreme Court Interpretation:

Satish @ Sabbe v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021):

• Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 27, focusing on the admissibility of a statement leading to the discovery of a weapon used in a murder.
• Interpretation: The Court emphasized that the discovery of the weapon was a crucial link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and reaffirmed the principle that only the portion of the statement leading directly to the discovery is admissible.

Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010):

• Facts: This case involved the infamous Jessica Lal murder case, where the Supreme Court discussed the evidentiary value of discoveries under Section 27.
• Interpretation: The Court held that the discovery of the weapon (a pistol) from the accused, as indicated by his statement, was admissible under Section 27. It reinforced the view that the section creates an exception to the inadmissibility of confessions made while in custody.

Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (1947):

 Facts: Though not recent, this is a landmark case that laid down the fundamental principles of Section 27.

 Interpretation: The Privy Council clarified that the phrase “fact discovered” in Section 27 means the fact which was previously unknown to the police and the discovery of which relates to the crime in question. The Court held that only the portion of the statement that directly leads to the discovery is admissible.

These cases highlight the consistent interpretation of Section 27 by the Supreme Court, focusing on its strict applicability to the part of the statement leading directly to the discovery of relevant facts and maintaining the balance between the rights of the accused and the requirements of justice.