Back
Privy Council At Madras
Sir John Beaumont, Uthwattand , Simonds , Justice Lords Wright, JJ.
Pulukuri Kottaya and others -Appellant
Versus
Emperor -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 37 of 1946
Decided On : 19-12-1946
S. 162, Criminal P. C. - Failure to produce police Sub-Inspector's note-book for cross-examination - S. 27, Evidence Act - Construction of 'fact discovered' - Admissibility of confessions made to police officer
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the accused for rioting and murder. The accused alleged that the prosecution witnesses were false witnesses due to factional disputes in the village.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was a breach of S. 162, Criminal P. C. as the police Sub-Inspector's note-book was not produced for cross-examination. The Court also held that the confessions made to the police officer were inadmissible.
Issues: The issues involved the failure to produce the note-book of the police Sub-Inspector for cross-examination and the admissibility of confessions made to the police officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the failure to produce the note-book of the police Sub-Inspector constituted a breach of S. 162, Criminal P. C. However, the Court found that no prejudice was occasioned to the accused in this case. Additionally, the Court interpreted S. 27, Evidence Act, and held that the 'fact discovered' must relate distinctly to the information given by the accused in police custody.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the High Court to consider whether the evidence, apart from the inadmissible confessional statements, was sufficient to justify the convictions.
Detailed Ratio Decidendi regarding Section 27, Evidence Act:
The provision under Section 27 permits the admissibility of only that portion of information furnished by a person accused of an offence, while in custody of a police officer, which distinctly relates to the fact discovered as a result thereof (!) (!) . The "fact discovered" is not confined to the mere recovery of a physical object but extends to the precise place from which the object is produced and crucially, the accused's knowledge of its existence and concealment at that specific location, thereby establishing a direct nexus between the information supplied and the discovery made (!) (!) . This interpretation safeguards the underlying prohibition on confessions embodied in Sections 25 and 26, ensuring that Section 27 operates as a narrowly carved exception without rendering those protections nugatory (!) .
Information supplied by the accused that pertains to the past use, history, or involvement of the discovered object in the commission of the offence—such as statements indicating how the object was used (e.g., "with which I stabbed" or details of prior criminal acts)—does not relate distinctly to the fact of its discovery and is therefore inadmissible, as it falls outside the strict ambit of the provision (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Only those segments of the accused's statement that precisely indicate the place of concealment and lead directly to the recovery—such as "I hid it in the rick" or "I will show [the place]"—are provable, even if embedded within broader confessional narratives, with the confessional elements required to be scrupulously segregated and excluded (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Where evidence under Section 27 has been improperly admitted by including inadmissible confessional portions, the court must disregard such tainted elements and evaluate the sufficiency of the remaining admissible evidence in accordance with Section 167 to determine if a conviction can be sustained, emphasizing the need for a trial process untainted by extraneous confessional material (!) (!) . This rigorous application underscores that Section 27 is not a conduit for smuggling in otherwise barred confessions but a limited mechanism to prove facts discovered through custodial disclosures (!) .
Sir John Beaumont:-
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 22-10-1945, dismissing an appeal against the judgment and order of the Court of Session, Guntur Division, dated 2-8-1945, whereby the appellants, who were accused 1 to 9, and nine others, were found guilty on charges of rioting and murder. Appellants 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 were sentenced to death, and appellants 3 to 9 were sentenced to transportation for life. There were other lesser concurrent sentences which need not be noticed. At the conclusion of the arguments their Lordships announced the advice which they would humbly tender to His Majesty, and they now give their reasons for that advice.
[2] The offence charged was of a type common in many parts of India in which there are factions in a village, and the members of one faction are assaulted by members of the other faction, and, in the prosecution which results, the Crown witnesses belong to the party hostile to the accused; which involves that their evidence requires very careful scrutiny. In the present case the assessors were not prepared to accept the prosecution evidence, but the learned Sessions Judge, whilst taking careful note of the fact that the six eye-witnesses were all hostile to the accused, nevertheless considered that the story which they told was substantially true, and accordingly he convicted the accused. As already noted, this decision was upheld by the High Court in appeal.
[3] The grounds upon which leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was granted were two:
1. The failure of the prosecution to supply the defence at the proper time with copies of statements which had been made by important prosecution witnesses during the course of the preliminary police investigation involving, it is alleged, a breach of the express provisions of S. 162, Criminal P. C.
2. The alleged wrongful admission and use in evidence of confessions alleged to have been made whilst in police custody by appellants 3 and 6. This point involves an important question as to the construction of S. 27, Evidence Act, upon which the opinions of High Courts in India are in conflict.
[4] Their Lordships will deal first with the alleged infringement of S. 162, Criminal P. C. The relevant portions of that section are as follows:
"162. (1) No statement made by any person to a police-officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police-diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that, when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, the Court shall on the request of the accused, refer to such writing and direct that the accused be furnished with a copy thereof, in order that any part of such statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict such witness in the manner provided by S. 145, Evidence Act, 1872. When any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination."
[5] The facts material upon this part of the case are these. The offence took place at about 6-30 p. m. on 29-12-1944, and at 7 a. m. on the 30th December, the police Sub-Inspector held an inquest on the body of one of the murdered men. He examined five of the prosecution witnesses, including four of the alleged six eye-witnesses, and wrote down their statements in his note-book. After the conclusion of the inquest the Circle Inspector took over the investigation from the police Sub-Inspector and on the same day, that is 30th December, he examin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
