Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Recoveries from shops pursuant to accused's custody confession are generally admissible under S.27 if leading to discovery of specific fact (gold traced to accused's sale), corroborated by shop owner/witnesses identifying accused and confirming transaction, enabling presumption u/s 114(a) for conviction (e.g., u/s 411 IPC) ["Abdul Jabbar VS State of Kerala through the Sub Inspector of Police - Crimes"] ["Abdul Jabbar, S/o Muhammed, Kandan vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["BAIJU AGED 26 YEARS S/O.KUNJIKANNAN vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]. Fails without proof of link to stolen property or independent corroboration, as S.27 is strictly limited to discovery info, not full confession ["Biswajit Das vs State of Tripura - Gauhati"] ["KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 664"] ["K. Babu, S/o. Kunjukuttan VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"]. Courts uphold if procedural safeguards met (e.g., mahazar, witnesses) ["Santhakumari @ Santha, W/o. Vasu vs State Of Kerala - Kerala"] ["T.P.SHAMEER ALIAS BABU vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
In criminal investigations, confessions made by an accused often play a pivotal role, but not all are admissible in court, especially those to police. A common query arises: Is the confession of an accused that leads to the recovery of gold ornaments sold in a shop admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? This question touches on the delicate balance between using confessional leads for discoveries while safeguarding against abuse. This post delves into the legal principles, conditions, judicial precedents, and practical safeguards, drawing from key cases to provide clarity.
Generally, such confessions can be admissible, but only under strict conditions. We'll break it down step by step, highlighting what makes evidence reliable or unreliable.
Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act bar confessions to police officers, but Section 27 carves out a vital exception. It allows admissibility of facts discovered based on information received from an accused in custody, provided the information distinctly relates to the fact discovered—such as the location of stolen gold ornaments or knowledge of their sale in a shop. K. Chinnaswamy Reddy VS State Of A. P. - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 247Geejaganda Somaiah VS State of Karnataka - 2007 5 Supreme 130
The doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events underpins this: the actual recovery validates the confession's truth. For gold ornaments sold to a jeweler, a statement like I sold the stolen ornaments at shop name is admissible if it leads directly to recovery, but extraneous details (e.g., which I stole) may be excluded if not tied to the discovery. Geejaganda Somaiah VS State of Karnataka - 2007 5 Supreme 130Sanjay @ Kaka: Nawabuddin @ Nawab: Vinod Kumar VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - 2001 1 Supreme 692
Key ingredients for admissibility include:- The information must be in police custody.- It must cause the discovery as a direct result.- Only the portion distinctly related to the discovery is provable.- The discovery must connect to the offense. Raja Khan VS State of Chattisgarh - 2025 2 Supreme 752Boby VS State Of Kerala - 2023 1 Supreme 275
Courts emphasize caution due to Section 27's potential for misuse, like planted evidence. Recoveries must be voluntary, with independent witnesses from the outset. Inconsistencies—such as absent witnesses, hostile testimonies, or procedural lapses—can render evidence unreliable. Raja Khan VS State of Chattisgarh - 2025 2 Supreme 752
For instance, if an accused discloses selling stolen gold to a shop, leading police and witnesses there for recovery, it's typically admissible, raising a presumption of guilt under Section 114 (possession of stolen property). But doubts arise if the shop owner denies the sale or if witnesses falter. Dakkata Balaram Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2023 3 Supreme 677Rama Shish Rai VS Jagdish Singh - 2004 8 Supreme 54
In one case, co-accused confessed to selling a gold article from a temple theft to a goldsmith's shop. However, the court acquitted the shop owner under IPC Section 411, noting the prosecution failed to prove the charge, as mere availability of gold/silver in a jeweler's shop is common, and evidence wasn't scrutinized properly. Champa Lal S/o Shri Babu Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 469
Similarly, recoveries without credible links, like gold ingots from jewelers purportedly from melted ornaments, require proof of transformation and origin; mere similarity fails without corroboration. KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 664
Courts have upheld Section 27 in gold recovery cases when procedures are followed:- Recovery of stolen gold from a jeweler based on disclosure was admissible, with Section 114 presumption applying. Dakkata Balaram Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2023 3 Supreme 677- Confessions leading to gold jewelry recovery were valid if distinctly related, but fabrication doubts excluded shaky evidence. Rama Shish Rai VS Jagdish Singh - 2004 8 Supreme 54
In a murder-robbery, accused sold victim's gold articles (bangles, studs, necklace) to a shop (PW.14). The court altered conviction to IPC Section 379 (theft), as robbery elements under Section 392/411 weren't proven, stressing evidence must match exact ingredients. Registrar General High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru VS Doddahanuma @ Hanuma S/o Venkatappa - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 910
Contrastingly, in another theft-murder, accused's disclosure led to identifying and recovering jewels sold to PW.11, but the court acquitted due to unproven links beyond suspicion—prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. P. Sadish @ Sadishkumar VS State rep by Inspector of Police, Tiruppur Rural Police Station - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 3910
Even in non-gold cases, principles apply: A confession portion leading to exhuming a body (with panchas and officials present) was admissible under Section 27, as only the recovery-linked part counts. State of Karnataka VS Siju Kurian S/o. Kuriyan - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 47State of Karnataka VS Subramanya - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 668Pattu Rajan VS State Of Tamil Nadu - 2019 3 Supreme 517
For retracted confessions, corroboration is prudent, though not mandatory if voluntary and true. Shop records, forensics, or owner testimony bolster reliability. K. I. Pavunny VS Assistant Collector (Hq) , Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin - 1997 2 Supreme 524
Not every confession passes muster:- Unrelated portions barred: Past history (e.g., theft details) excluded under Sections 25-26. K. Chinnaswamy Reddy VS State Of A. P. - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 247- No independent witnesses/inconsistencies: Evidence deemed unsafe. Raja Khan VS State of Chattisgarh - 2025 2 Supreme 752KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 664- Joint disclosures/rediscoveries: Inadmissible; must be new facts. Sukhvinder Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 549- Transformed items: Proving link to originals essential. KOCHU MANI S/O BALAN VS STATE OF KERALA - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 664
If recovery is from a known place or witnesses turn hostile, grave doubts persist, as in gold chain recoveries doubted for procedural flaws. Raja Khan VS State of Chattisgarh - 2025 2 Supreme 752
To strengthen Section 27 evidence:- Record disclosures verbatim with independent witnesses present.- Prepare detailed recovery mahazars.- Corroborate via shop bills, forensics, or CCTV.- Courts: Scrutinize for voluntariness and compliance; don't convict solely on suspicion.
This aligns with the principle: Suspicion can't replace proof.
Disclaimer: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
For more on evidence law, explore our related posts on circumstantial evidence and confessions.
#Section27, #EvidenceAct, #CriminalLawIndia
The recovery of MO1, MO2 and MO2(a) pursuant to the confession statement given by the petitioner while in police custody is admissible under Section 27 of the Act, as rightly held by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. ... PW10 deposed that on his arrest, the petitioner confessed that MO1 gold chain was sold by him at the jewellery shop belonging to PW4, and if he was taken there, he would show MO1 gold chain. ... PW4, the owner of t....
The recovery of MO1, MO2 and MO2(a) pursuant to the confession statement given by the petitioner while in police custody is admissible under Section 27 of the Act, as rightly held by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. ... PW10 deposed that on his arrest, the petitioner confessed that MO1 gold chain was sold by him at the jewellery shop belonging to PW4, and if he was taken there, he would show MO1 gold chain. ... PW4, the owner of....
Thereupon, the C.I. of Police informed him that the theft of gold ornaments had occurred and accused persons had sold a portion of the gold stolen by them in his shop. Thus, the C.I. of the Police required PW2 to surrender the said gold. ... PW2 is the owner of the jewellery shop from whom the recovery of the gold ornaments was allegedly affected, as evidenced by Ext.P17. He denied the recovery of gold#HL....
Early next morning he left for Tirupur where he sold the gold bangles for Rs.12,000/- at a Jewellery Shop. 11. ... The confession statement of the accused that led to the recovery of the murder weapon was relied upon to the extent permitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as was the testimony of the Police Surgeon PW29, read with documents Exts.P38 and P39 and the testimony of the Forensic expert PW27 James ... him cut gold bangles on 06.12.200....
He further stated that while in police custody co-accused Harchand Ram and Chhagna Ram made a disclosure statement to him that out of the total stolen property from the temple, they sold one silver bar and one gold article to the petitioner Champa Lal. ... As per the material available on record, the petitioner is a goldsmith having a jewellry shop and availability of some gold and silver articles at his shop is a common thing. ... It was his contention that pursuant to the information....
S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act') is by way of proviso to S.25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. ... S.25, S.26 and S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act read as under: "25. Confession to police officer not to be proved. No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accus....
He also identified the MO-3 saree worn by the accused, when she came to his shop. 27. PW8, Sainudheen. C., has witnessed the recovery of currency notes beneath the pillow from the house of the accused. ... The prosecution has produced only the relevant portions of the alleged confession statement of the accused, ie., Exts.P27 to P29. However, the non-production of the recovery mahazars under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is fatal t....
The recovery of MO1, MO2 and MO2(a) pursuant to the confession statement given by the petitioner while in police custody is admissible under Section 27 of the Act, as rightly held by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. ... PW10 deposed that on his arrest, the petitioner confessed that MO1 gold chain was sold by him at the jewellery shop belonging to PW4, and if he was taken there, he would show MO1 gold chain. ... PW4, the owner of....
Thus, the recovery of MO1 gold chain pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused No.1 was proved through the evidence of PWs3, 4, 5 and 7 and it is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act . ... His evidence would go to show that pursuant to the confession statement, he and the police party as led by the accused persons reached the shop of PW3 and identified the accused persons as the one who had #HL_STA....
Madhanlal was examined as PW.11 and he has testified that PW.12 Sasikumar on 112. 2006 sold MO.3 Machine Cutting Gold Chain in his shop and he gave a sum of Rs.29,500/-as sale price to PW.12 Sasikumar in two instalments. ... PW.11 Madhanlal did not speak about the presence of A1 Murali in his shop during the sale transaction. PW.12 Sasikumar having turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to establish that MO.3 Gold Chain came to be sold at the instance of A1 Murali. ... ... #HL_STA....
Further as held by the Apex Court that if a confession is made by accused before Police and a portion of confession leads to recovery of any incriminating material, such portion alone is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the case on hand also, the accused person led the Police as well as the panchas and in the presence of P.W.19 Tahasildar, the body was exhumed and hence the judgment of the Apex Court referred above is aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the case on hand also, the recovery of dead body was made at the instance of accused.
In the case on hand also, the accused persons have led the Police as well as the panchas and in the presence of PW-15 Assistant Commissioner, the body was exhumed and hence the judgment of the Apex Court referred above is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Further as held by the Apex Court that if a confession is made by accused before Police and a portion of confession leads to recovery of any incriminating material, such portion alone is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Be that as it may, if a confession is made by the accused before the police and a portion of the confession leads to the recovery of any incriminating material, such portion alone is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since only such portion of the confession relating to the recovery of certain material objects was admitted in evidence and relied upon, such reliance was in accordance with law. The confession herein cannot even be called an extra-judicial confession because of the presence of the police.
The accused asked the owner of the shop to return the gold articles sold by him. There were in all 13 gold and silver articles namely, a pair of gold machine made bangles, a pair of gold ear studs with corals, two pairs of ear studs with pearls, a pair of ear studs, one gold necklace, one gold chain having gajje design, a pair of silver lamp stand sets, a pair of silver lotas, six silver karadige of different sizes, a pair of silver small lamps, a gold finger ring, a pair of gold bangles and a pair of gold Mati. They all went to the shop of PW.14, situated near Rajamarket, ....
In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses and identified P.W.11. While in custody, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had sold the gold jewels. Since it came to light that the appellant had involved in causing the death of the deceased in the present case, P.W.16 took custody of the accused on 29.12.2010.
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
