Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Nature of Section 27 Evidence: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act allows for the admissibility of evidence obtained through a disclosure statement made by the accused, particularly when it leads to the discovery of a fact or object related to the crime. It is an exception to the general inadmissibility of confessional statements made in police custody (Sections 24-26). The core idea is confirmation by subsequent events, where the discovery or recovery in pursuance of the accused's information is crucial ["Allam Sudhakar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Telangana"], ["Boby VS State Of Kerala - Supreme Court"], ["Adina wd/o Subhash Rathod VS State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ghatanji - Bombay"].
Conditions for Admissibility: To prove evidence under Section 27, the prosecution must demonstrate that:
The discovery was made in pursuance of the information provided by the accused ["Lokesh Kumar S/o Sh Late Mohan Lal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Rajasthan"], ["SRI SALEM DEBBARMA @ SALEN DEBBARMA AND ORS vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA - Tripura"], ["Rajveer Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Recording and Drawing Discovery Panchnama: The police are required to carefully record the disclosure statement and draw a discovery panchnama, detailing the recovery process. Proper documentation and procedural compliance are essential for the evidence to be admissible ["Sanath Roy VS State of Kerala Represented by the Circle Inspector of Police - Crimes"], ["Lokesh Kumar S/o Sh Late Mohan Lal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Rajasthan"], ["Adina wd/o Subhash Rathod VS State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Ghatanji - Bombay"].
Limitations and Exceptions: If the fact has already been discovered or the discovery is not in pursuance of the accused’s information, then evidence under Section 27 may not be admissible. For example, if the dead body was already found before the statement, subsequent recovery of objects related to the crime cannot be used as evidence under Section 27 ["Chandupatla Sravan vs State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Reliability and Corroboration: Confessions or disclosures under Section 27 need corroboration, especially if made by co-accused, to establish their credibility ["Lokesh Kumar S/o Sh Late Mohan Lal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Rajasthan"].
Legal and Procedural Requirements: The statement must be clearly and carefully recorded, and the discovery must be directly related to the information supplied by the accused. Any breach of procedural requirements, such as improper recording, can render the evidence inadmissible ["Allam Sudhakar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Telangana"], ["SRI SALEM DEBBARMA @ SALEN DEBBARMA AND ORS vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA - Tripura"].
Proving evidence under Section 27 involves demonstrating that the accused’s disclosure led directly to the discovery of facts or objects related to the crime, with proper procedural adherence in recording the statement and drawing the discovery panchnama. The evidence must be relevant, voluntary, and directly connected to the crime to be admissible. The section acts as an exception to the general rule of inadmissibility of confessions made in police custody, emphasizing the importance of the discovery process and proper documentation. Breaches of procedural requirements or facts already known prior to the statement can invalidate the evidence. Overall, meticulous recording, procedural compliance, and corroboration are key to effectively proving Section 27 evidence in court.
Many people search for a straightforward answer to questions like Explain Section 65 of Evidence Act Simple Language, but today we're diving into a closely related and crucial provision—Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Often confused with other sections on evidence admissibility, Section 27 deals specifically with statements made by an accused in police custody that lead to the discovery of facts. This post breaks it down in simple terms, covering requirements, landmark cases, limitations, and practical tips. Note: This is general information for educational purposes; consult a qualified lawyer for specific advice.
Section 27 creates a narrow exception to the general rule that confessions to police are inadmissible (under Sections 25 and 26). It allows only that part of the accused's statement—whether confessional or not—that directly leads to the discovery of a relevant fact to be used as evidence.
The section states:
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. State of M. P. VS Mahesh - Madhya Pradesh
In plain words: If an accused tells the police something while in custody, and that leads police to find key evidence (like a weapon or stolen item), only the specific words linking the statement to the discovery can be evidence in court. The rest of the statement is barred.
For evidence under Section 27 to hold up in court, the prosecution typically must prove four essential conditions:
Discovery of a Relevant Fact: The statement must result in finding a fact relevant to the case. For example, the murder weapon is buried under the tree, leading to its recovery. Subramanya VS State Of Karnataka - Supreme Court
Witness Testimony on Discovery: A witness (often a police officer or independent panch witness) must testify about the discovery. Lack of reliable witnesses can doom the evidence. Balu Sudam Khalde VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court
Accused in Police Custody: The statement must be made while the accused is in custody. Custody means formal arrest or restraint, not just informal questioning. State of M. P. VS Mahesh - Madhya Pradesh
Distinct Link to the Discovered Fact: Only the portion distinctly related to the discovery is admissible. Extraneous details, even confessional, are excluded. As one court noted, Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT is applicable when the discovery should be of distinct fact and same requir... Ramsingbhai Samjibhai Bhabhor vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1489
These requirements ensure the evidence is reliable and not coerced.
Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, have shaped Section 27 through key rulings:
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh: Recovery from a place accessible to others doesn't invalidate the evidence, as long as the statement led to it. Jagdish VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh
Suresh Chand Bahri v. State of Bihar: The informant must be an accused in custody, and the fact must be unknown to police beforehand. State of M. P. VS Mahesh - Madhya Pradesh
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka: Emphasizes the direct causal link between statement and discovery. Sanjay @ Kaka: Nawabuddin @ Nawab: Vinod Kumar VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - Supreme Court
Additional cases reinforce this:
In a murder case, the other part of the evidence is the recovery of the stone on the information of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act based on his confessional statement. This highlights its role in circumstantial evidence chains. Raju @ Rajendra Kumar, S/o. Shri Samartha Ram VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 788
Courts stress that Section 27 evidence must form part of a complete chain, often alongside Section 106 (accused's burden for facts in their special knowledge). For instance, the accused's failure to explain incriminating recoveries strengthens the case. Ajay Durlabh VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 610
These interpretations prevent misuse while upholding justice.
Section 27 isn't a blanket allowance—several pitfalls can render it inadmissible:
Prior Police Knowledge: If police already knew about the fact or it wasn't in the accused's exclusive knowledge, it's inadmissible. Bahadul Alias Ghanshyam Padhan VS State Of Orissa - Supreme CourtLokesh VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh
Witness Corroboration: Panch witnesses must support the recovery memo. Weak or absent corroboration weakens the prosecution. Balu Sudam Khalde VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court
Incomplete Chain of Evidence: Section 27 evidence must fit into a cumulative chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In one case, failure to establish this led to acquittal: The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence... Ramsingbhai Samjibhai Bhabhor vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1489
Related Evidence Rules: Sometimes linked to other sections, like Section 106 for unexplained circumstances or even electronic evidence under Sections 65A/65B, but core focus remains discovery. Naresh Samadhan Bhange VS State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Chandrapur - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 1673
Prosecution must anticipate defense arguments on these points.
To leverage or challenge Section 27 effectively:
Prosecution: Document custody precisely, use independent witnesses, isolate the admissible statement portion, and build corroborative evidence.
Defense: Probe for prior knowledge, witness credibility, and non-exclusive discovery sites. Argue false explanations by accused can backfire under Section 106. Ajay Durlabh VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 610
Always view evidence holistically, as courts do in circumstantial cases. Banti alias Jitendra Sharma VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh
Section 27 balances the need for reliable evidence against protections for the accused. By meeting the four key requirements and navigating judicial precedents, it can be a powerful tool in criminal trials. Remember:- Only discovery-linked parts are admissible.- Custody and relevance are non-negotiable.- Corroboration is crucial.
References: Jagdish VS State of M. P. - Madhya PradeshBanti alias Jitendra Sharma VS State of M. P. - Madhya PradeshBalu Sudam Khalde VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme CourtSubramanya VS State Of Karnataka - Supreme CourtBahadul Alias Ghanshyam Padhan VS State Of Orissa - Supreme CourtState of M. P. VS Mahesh - Madhya PradeshSanjay @ Kaka: Nawabuddin @ Nawab: Vinod Kumar VS State (N. C. T. ) Of Delhi - Supreme CourtLokesh VS State of M. P. - Madhya PradeshRaju @ Rajendra Kumar, S/o. Shri Samartha Ram VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 788Ramsingbhai Samjibhai Bhabhor vs State Of Gujarat - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1489Ajay Durlabh VS State - 2023 Supreme(Del) 610
This explanation simplifies a complex provision—share if helpful! For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
#Section27EvidenceAct, #IndianEvidenceAct, #LegalBasics
Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that recovery was made under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, the confession of the accused to Police is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 27. ... It is important to note that the confession given to the Police is hit under Section 25 of ....
is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. ... and cash amounting to Rs.16,500/-, MO5 and MO6 mobile phones, MO1 purse and MO2 identity card were seized, which are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (the Evidence Act). ... under Section 27 of the #HL_ST....
(Paras 10, 17, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34 and 36) (B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement ... – Section 27 of Evidence Act requires that fact discovered embraces place from which object is produced and knowledge of accused ... Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the discoveries in ac....
The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence to support confessions made by co-accused under Section 27 of the Evidence ... If it is an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, something is required to be recovered or discovered in pursuance of the information supplied under Section 27 of the Evidence #HL_STAR....
The other part of the evidence is the recovery of the stone on the information of the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act based on his confessional statement. ... One of the foundational fact which the prosecution was required to prove for invoking the benefit of provision of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, is esta....
Section 26 of the EVIDENCE ACT and it cannot be read in evidence against the accused. ... is hit by Section 26 of the EVIDENCE ACT and cannot be admitted in the evidence. ... Section 27 of the EVIDENCE ACT is applicable when the discovery should be of distinct fact and same requir....
27 of the Evidence Act and the application of Section 106. ... chain of circumstantial evidence necessary for conviction, particularly regarding the admissibility of recovery evidence under Section ... Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the discoveries in accordance with law. Section 27 of the #HL_ST....
27 of the Evidence Act. ... Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to consider whether the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the discoveries in accordance with law. Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads thus: '27. ... We would now discuss about the requirement under law so as to pr....
Another elementary statutory breach which we notice in recording the evidence of the above witnesses is that of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. ... As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, when the dead body was already found, the exception under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act will not work in favour of th....
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC, SECTION 27 EVIDENCE ACT - The court discussed the application of ... The court also referenced Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained through a disclosure statement ... State of Karnataka had dealt the requirement under law so as to prove a disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indi....
Appellant living in the house with the deceased at the relevant time when the death was caused has also been proved. Thus, the onus shifts on him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove that how the deceased died.
25. Section 67 of the Evidence Act provides as to how to prove the signature and handwriting of a person alleged to have signed or written document produced.
According to it, “Proved – A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matter before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists." How to prove a thing, it is provided in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Evidence Act").
In the light of discussion made above, prosecution has established that the death of the deceased was dowry death. It is for the accused to show that the death of the deceased did not result from any cruelty or demand of dowry by the accused persons/appellant. The presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is rebuttable, hence now onus shifts on the accused to prove as to how the deceased died.
9. How to prove electronic evidence is given in Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. As per Section 65A, the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B. As per Section 65B, if the printout etc. prepared from the original electronic records, then there should be certificate about the genuineness.
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
