Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Basant, Mr. Abdulla Naseeh V.T., Adv., Meena K. Poulose, Adv., Mr. Akshay, Adv., Mr. Ashok Basoya, Adv., Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv., Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. K.N. Balgopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR, Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv., Ms. Ashly Harshad, Adv.

Ratio in Regards to Section 27 Evidence Act

Section 27 permits proof of only that part of information given by an accused in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered thereby; the fact discovered encompasses the place from which the object is produced and the accused's knowledge thereof.[1000767320019][1000767320020] Information regarding the past user or history of the produced object does not relate to its discovery and is inadmissible.[1000767320019][1000767320020] The exact information given by the accused, leading to the discovery, must be recorded and proved through evidence, such as a panchnama prepared at the police station in the presence of independent witnesses before proceeding to the site; the investigating officer must depose the precise words of the accused.[1000767320023][1000767320024][1000767320025] Failure to follow this procedure, including absence of any recorded statement or memorandum under Section 27 with panch witnesses, renders the alleged recovery inadmissible and unproved.[1000767320005][1000767320025] In the present case, no such memorandum or exact confessional statement was prepared or proved for the recovery of the dead body or ornaments at the appellant's instance, nor was the spade recovery from a place exclusively within the knowledge of accused No. 1 (as it was already known); thus, prosecution failed to establish these recoveries.[1000767320025][1000767320026][1000767320027]