Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 27 of the Evidence Act - The section allows proof of information received from an accused that leads to the discovery of a fact or object related to the crime; however, only the specific information that relates directly to the fact discovered can be proved. It does not permit proof of the entire confession or unrelated details. ["2025 5 Supreme 176"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 474"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 252"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 293"]
Proving Recovery Under Section 27 - Recovery based solely on a confession under Section 27 is insufficient to implicate others unless supported by independent evidence linking the discovered fact to the crime. The recovery of items like clothing, body parts, or objects must be corroborated by proper recovery memos, site plans, and witnesses. The mere fact of recovery or confession alone does not establish guilt. ["2025 5 Supreme 176"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1284"], ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2870"], ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 394"]
Requirements and Safeguards - The confession must be voluntary, made in a fit state of mind, and recorded properly. Confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible unless they meet specific criteria, and the recovery must be supported by credible evidence beyond the confession itself. ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1284"], ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2870"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 293"]
Extra-Judicial Confessions - These can be relied upon if proven beyond reasonable doubt and are voluntary. Proving such confessions requires clear evidence that they were made in a proper manner and in a fit state of mind. Contradictory or suspicious evidence undermines their credibility. ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3110"]
Legal Position and Judicial Precedents - Courts emphasize that proof under Section 27 must be precise: only the information that directly relates to the fact discovered can be proved, and the evidence must be free from suspicion. The process involves corroboration through recovery memos, witnesses, and independent evidence. ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 252"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 474"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Telangana) 293"]
Analysis and Conclusion:The extract emphasizes that recovery under Section 27 requires strict proof of the information provided by the accused, proper documentation (recovery memos, site plans), and corroborative evidence. Confessions or recoveries made without independent evidence or proper procedures are insufficient to prove guilt. Courts scrutinize the voluntariness of confessions and their direct link to the facts recovered. Therefore, the extract underscores that confessions under Section 27 need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must be specific to the fact discovered; mere recovery or confession without proper corroboration cannot alone establish guilt.
In criminal trials, confessions made by an accused can be a double-edged sword. While they often provide crucial leads, strict rules govern their use in court, especially when they lead to the . A common question arises: Whether the Recovery Made Pursuant to the Made by the Accused about the Offence Committed by him and his Co-Accused is admissible? This post delves into the nuances of (IEA), explaining its scope, limitations, and judicial interpretations.
Confessions to police are generally barred, but Section 27 carves out an exception for parts that lead to . We'll break down the legal framework, key principles, landmark cases, and practical considerations, drawing from authoritative judgments.
The IEA imposes safeguards against coerced confessions:
Thus, only the portion of the statement directly linking to a discovered fact—like a weapon, stolen goods, or body—is admissible. The rest remains protected. 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1688
Courts have outlined strict conditions for invoking Section 27:
Limited Scope: Only the part leading directly to the recovery of a body or articles is provable. The Supreme Court in held that admitting the entire statement was erroneous. 2010 0 Supreme(Cal) 1119 Only that part of a that leads directly to the recovery... can be proved under Section 27.
Custody and Discovery: The accused must be in , and the information must yield a new fact. Mere re-discovery or information from others doesn't qualify. 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 362
Precise Recording: The prosecution must specify exact words used by the accused, especially with co-accused. In , the Court stressed the Investigating Officer's duty to clarify who said what. 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 611 The Investigating Officer must clearly state who provided the information and the exact words used. 2015 0 Supreme(All) 1151
Failure here can render evidence inadmissible, as seen in cases where procedural lapses occurred. For instance, in one judgment, the discovery of a truncated body was questioned: the discovery of a truncated body... may not be the fact discovered as a 'fact discovered' under Section 27... need not necessarily be equated with the 'object recovered'. 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 222
Judicial precedents refine these principles:
: Emphasized splitting confessions; only recovery-linked parts admissible. Trial court error in full admission led to scrutiny. 2010 0 Supreme(Cal) 1119
: With multiple accused, IO must pinpoint speakers. Vague statements fail. 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 611
Other cases highlight pitfalls:
In a murder conspiracy appeal, the court acquitted due to gaps in and inadmissible : The leading to the recovery of the body was deemed inadmissible due to procedural lapses. 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 222 The chain wasn't complete, underscoring Section 27's role in circumstantial cases.
Recovery memos must be proved meticulously. One case noted: For the recovery evidence under Section 27... the required conditions are propounded like this in ... The bundle of notes was seized and recovery memo Ex.Ka.-12 was prepared. But contradictions led to acquittal. 2023 0 Supreme(All) 289
need corroboration: The credibility and impartiality of P.W.2 Nasir before whom is made is also not challenged... Thus, the is proved to be true and voluntary. Yet, recovery strengthens it. 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1914
Weak recoveries don't presume guilt: simply recovery of the dead body or weapon of offence will not lead to a presumption that a person who has led to such recovery is the assailant. 2009 0 Supreme(Ori) 838
These rulings show courts demand rigor, especially in joint trials.
When an accused confesses in custody leading to evidence recovery (e.g., weapon or property), proceed cautiously:
Documentation: Record exact words, witness presence, and chain of custody. The prosecution must ensure that the is split into components... 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 611
Multiple Accused: Distinguish statements. Silence on one accused's role doesn't aid defense if proven. 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2286
Circumstantial Link: Recovery alone isn't enough; form a complete chain. In a robbery-murder case, '' plus recoveries sufficed: Prosecution established '', and recovery of stolen articles. 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2286
Challenges: No FSL report or witnesses weaken cases. No FSL Report in respect of murder weapon... is available on record. Led to acquittal. 2023 0 Supreme(All) 289
In explosive possession trials, spot seizures bypass Section 27: all the explosive substances were seized in the spot itself... applicability of Section 27 does not arise. 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 4190
Section 27 often bolsters circumstantial cases:
Must exclude : for a conviction based on , the prosecution must establish a complete chain. 2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 222
require caution but, if voluntary, aid: the extra-judicial in the present case deserves to be accepted. 2015 0 Supreme(Bom) 1914
No recovery from one accused's statement limits impact: there is no recovery in pursuance of his . 2011 0 Supreme(AP) 5
Under Section 27 IEA, recoveries from accused confessions are admissible only if they distinctly relate to discovered facts, with precise proof of custody and statements. Prosecutions must document meticulously to avoid exclusion, as lapses often tip scales toward acquittal. 1987 0 Supreme(MP) 499 2019 0 Supreme(UK) 587
Key Takeaways:- Split confessions; admit only relevant parts. 2010 0 Supreme(Cal) 1119- IO testimony on exact words crucial for co-accused. 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 611- Corroborate with chain of evidence. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2793- Prepare for scrutiny on procedural compliance. 1979 0 Supreme(Ker) 56
This is general information based on judicial trends and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance. Stay informed on evolving criminal law!
(Word count: approx. 1050)
#Section27, #EvidenceAct, #CriminalLaw
We would not dwell on the discrepancy since nothing comes out of the recovery made under Section 27. The recovery was made on a confession statement by A3 and not A5 or A6. ... When even the recovery made based on a confession under Section 27, by itself cannot inculpate the person who made such a confession, if there is no independent evidence otherwi....
……Thus the fact remains that no confessional statement of A-1 causing the recovery of these jewels was proved under Section 27, Evidence Act…..” ... Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads thus: “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. ... He was expected to be aware of the need to prepare a recovery memo of the dead body allegedl....
Even otherwise, the discovery of a truncated body, said to be of the deceased, may not be the fact discovered as a “fact discovered” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act need not necessarily be equated with the “object recovered”. ... such confession ought to be an accused of a case and be in police custody for his statement to be taken as confession, inculpatory or otherwise, which would be admissible under Section #HL_ST....
Next point for consideration is that whether the recovery under Section 27 is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. ... So recovery under Section 27 is not applicable. In this regard, he has relied upon the decided case in State of Haryana vs. ... Therefore, the alleged ''Extra Judicial Confession'' ought to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Mor....
From their statement, let us first consider as to whether the recording of the first accused's confession statement was proved. ... 27. In order to prove the recovery, the prosecution heavily relies on PW9 and PW14. ... But PW14's silence as to the second accused's confession and it's consequential recovery would in no way favour the accused, as admittedly, there is not even a suggestio....
He has also proved the recovery of the Banka at the indication of Kaleem. ... He has also categorically stated that prior to the recovery no statement of the accused was recorded. He has also proved recovery of the mobile phone No. 9918932015 of kaleem. ... Under sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer whether in custody or not can be prov....
Further, the fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical object and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved. ... It is a settled legal position that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. ... At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section #HL_START....
For convenience, Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is extracted hereunder. 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. ... be proved. ... Needless to say, the evidence of the police officer cannot be brushed aside only for the reason of the officer being part of investigation or part of the proceedings in such confession was recorded and consequently recovery is made....
For the recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the required conditions are propounded like this in Anter Singh Vs. ... The bundle of notes was seized and recovery memo Ex.Ka.-12 was prepared on the spot. P.W.8 (Devendra Singh) also proved the recovery memo. The aforesaid articles were proved as Material Exts. 1 to 9 by P.W.7. ... Recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-1....
For the recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the required conditions are propounded like this in Anter Singh Vs. ... The bundle of notes was seized and recovery memo Ex.Ka.-12 was prepared on the spot. P.W.8 (Devendra Singh) also proved the recovery memo. The aforesaid articles were proved as Material Exts. 1 to 9 by P.W.7. ... Recovery memo (Ex.Ka.-1....
In the instant case, all the explosive substances were seized in the spot itself (i.e.) from the car dickey. Therefore, applicability of Section 27 does not arise in this case, especially in the facts and circumstances when secret information with regard to the transport of explosive substances, was received by the Police. “Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received fr....
The credibility and impartiality of P.W.2 Nasir before whom confession is made is also not challenged in any way. Thus, the confession is proved to be true and voluntary. Therefore, we are satisfied that the extra-judicial confession in the present case deserves to be accepted to place implicit reliance thereon.
Furthermore, the conduct of A2 in allegedly informing over phone to PW.7 in the early hours about the death of the deceased persons shows that he has no complicity in the commission of offence. But, that itself is not a circumstance to hold that he has also participated in the commission of the offence since there is no other evidence. The confession said to have been given by him is also a very weak piece of evidence and there is no recovery in pursuance of his confession, except re....
It would also go to show that P.W.10 approver had also participated in commission of the crime along with other two accused. Similarly the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the evidence of P.W.12 deserves no confidence of the court, as it was recorded after three weeks after the commencement of investigation has no legs to stand. The finger print expert who was examined as P.W.25, had lifted the finger prints on the scene of occurrence in the drawer of st....
So far as recovery of the dead body and the weapon of offence are concerned admittedly such statement was made before the police. No doubt in consonance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act the part of the confession leading to recovery can be accepted in evidence but then simply recovery of the dead body or weapon of offence will not lead to a presumption that a person who has led to such recovery is the assailant.
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
