Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State Of U. P. VS Deoman Upadhyaya...
Checking relevance for Jafarudheen VS State of Kerala...
2022 4 Supreme 732 : Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allows the admissibility of information received from a person accused of an offence while in the custody of a police officer, only to the extent that it relates distinctly to a fact discovered as a result of that information. Such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, may be proved if it directly links to the discovered fact. However, the prosecution must prove that the information led to the discovery of the fact, and the recovery must satisfy the court’s conscience. The court must also be conscious of the witness''''s credibility and other evidence produced when dealing with such recoveries. Thus, a confession made by an accused in custody can be used under Section 27 only if it leads to the discovery of a fact, and only the part of the confession relating distinctly to that fact is admissible.Checking relevance for Narayan Yadav VS State of Chhattisgarh...
2025 6 Supreme 403 : Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allows the use of information given by an accused in custody, which leads to the discovery of a fact related to the commission of an offence. Only that portion of the information which is connected to the discovered fact is admissible. This provision enables the use of a disclosure statement made by an accused to assist in the discovery of evidence, but it does not permit the use of a confession for discharge unless it leads to such a discovery. The section does not allow the use of a confession for discharge per se, but rather permits the use of information that results in the discovery of a fact not previously known to the police.Checking relevance for Renuka Prasad VS State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police...
Checking relevance for Kusal Toppo VS State of Jharkhand...
2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1047 : Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made by an accused can be used to support a conviction only if a fact is discovered in consequence of the information provided by the accused. However, such a confession cannot be used for discharge. The recovery of a common material like a rope, without forensic linkage to the crime and without corroboration, does not satisfy the conditions of Section 27. The court must ensure the credibility of the evidence and verify that the discovery was genuine and not fabricated. In this case, the recovery of a single rope—available in every household—without any forensic report linking it to the crime, fails to meet the requirements of Section 27, and thus the confession cannot be relied upon to establish guilt or support discharge.Checking relevance for Aghnoo Nagesia VS State Of Bihar...
1965 0 Supreme(SC) 151 : Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 partially lifts the ban imposed by Section 25, allowing certain parts of a confessional statement made to a police officer to be admissible in evidence. Specifically, if a confession is made to a police officer and contains information about the discovery of facts that would not be known to the public, such information may be admissible under Section 27. This means that while a confession made by an accused to a police officer is generally inadmissible under Section 25, parts of it can be used for discharge (i.e., to prove the accused''''s guilt or innocence) if they fall within the exceptions provided by Section 27.Checking relevance for Yuvaraj VS State, Inspector of Police, Elachipalayam Police Station, Namakkal...
Checking relevance for Budhram VS State of Rajasthan...
Checking relevance for Prahlad S/o Shri Radheshyam Parikh VS State Of Rajasthan...
2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 120 : Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act allows the use of a confession made by an accused in police custody only if it leads to the discovery or recovery of a fact that corroborates the truth of the information. The confession itself is inadmissible under Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Evidence Act, but the part of the statement relating distinctly to the discovery of a fact (such as stolen goods, instrument of crime, or other material object) becomes relevant and admissible under Section 27. However, such information cannot be used for discharge unless there is a confirmed discovery or recovery of a fact that verifies the veracity of the disclosure. Simply having a confession does not lead to discharge; the confession must be corroborated by a tangible discovery to be admissible. Therefore, a confession under Section 27 cannot be used for discharge unless it results in the recovery of a fact that confirms its truth.
