Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["Kanwalpreet Singh Alias Kanwal VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Daya Prasad @ Vyas Ji VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Zakiya VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["Aladdin VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["Major Singh S/o Shri Jogendra Singh VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["Shrawan S/o Sh. Bhagirath VS State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Rajasthan"]- ["Boby VS State Of Kerala - Supreme Court"]- ["Ashok @ Mulla Ram S/o Sh. Birbal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Crimes"]
In criminal investigations across India, recoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, play a pivotal role in linking accused persons to crimes. But what happens when such a recovery is effected at a different police station from where the accused is held? This question often arises in cases involving narcotics, theft, or violent crimes, raising doubts about evidentiary value and admissibility.
What is the effect of recovery under Sec 27 by a different police station? Generally, such recoveries may lose their admissibility under Section 27 if the accused was not in custody at the station where the recovery occurs or if procedural norms are flouted. This article delves into the nuances, drawing from judicial precedents to provide clarity. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 27 carves out an exception to the bar on confessions to police, allowing admissibility of facts discovered based on information from an accused in custody. The provision states that only the portion of the statement leading directly to discovery is admissible, emphasizing a strict cause and effect principle. FATEHSING DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS STATE - 1972 Supreme(Guj) 102
Key requirements include:- The accused must be in police custody at the time of disclosure.- The information must lead to the discovery of a fact.- Authorship of concealment by the accused must be implied. Udai Bhan VS State Of U. P. - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 32
Courts have repeatedly held that recoveries must satisfy these to hold evidentiary weight. Without them, the recovery's value diminishes significantly.
Admissibility hinges on the accused's custody status and the recovery site. If the disclosure occurs while the accused is in custody at the same station where recovery is made, Section 27 typically applies. However, shifts to different stations complicate matters.
In one case, the court noted: the essential ingredient of Sec. 27 of the Act is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Manohar Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 1991 0 Supreme(Raj) 357 Here, recovery based on information from Ex.P-9 dated 4.2.80 was deemed insufficient without proof of custody or authorship, especially since arrest was on 31.3.1980.
Similarly: recovery of a blood stained spear becomes incriminating not because of its recovery at the instance of the accused but the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authorship of concealment. Udai Bhan VS State Of U. P. - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 32
Recoveries at different stations often face scrutiny for procedural lapses, rendering them inadmissible under Section 27. Consider these insights:
Another ruling warned: The moment this kind of practice is permitted; the day is not far when there would be a trait that the police officers will claim that though the memos were prepared in the police station but the things were recovered from a different place. Pappulal S/o Devilal Jat, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Fatehpura vs Union Of India, Through Cbn - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1899 This highlights risks of fabricated recoveries.
Procedural irregularities, like preparing memos post-recovery or at wrong stations, raise suspicions. In Jasleen Kaur VS Union Territory Of Chandigarh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 2069, the recovery memo (Ex. P-1) mentioned FIR details registered later, casting doubt: mentioning the complete details of FIR on Ex. P-1, i.e. recovery memo, which was registered before 4.30 PM, raises suspicion about recovery.
Courts consistently prioritize compliance:
Even if Section 27 fails, other evidence—like witnesses or forensics—may sustain cases. Udai Bhan VS State Of U. P. - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 32
Not all hope is lost for prosecutions:- Solitary eyewitnesses can suffice if trustworthy. Sanjeev Kumar VS State of J&K - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 210- Circumstantial chains, including post-mortems and item recoveries, uphold convictions. Harbir VS State of Haryana - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1201- Tribunals bar penalties on exonerated facts under Kerala Police Act. STATE OF KERALA vs S.VIJAYAKUMAR - 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51063
However, irregularities like delayed FIRs or witness contradictions often tip scales toward acquittal. Jasleen Kaur VS Union Territory Of Chandigarh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 2069
Courts may quash cases if co-accused acquittals shatter the foundation. JINISH vs THE STATE OF KERALA - 2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21065
In conclusion, while Section 27 is a powerful tool, recoveries at different police stations typically erode its evidentiary force due to custody and procedural concerns. Judicial trends favor strict interpretation, urging better practices. Stay informed, but seek professional counsel for case-specific strategies.
References:- Jai Singh S/o Pitram Jat vs State of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 2203Udai Bhan VS State Of U. P. - 1962 0 Supreme(SC) 32Manohar Lal VS State of Rajasthan - 1991 0 Supreme(Raj) 357Manoranjan Singh VS State Of Nct Of Delhi - 1998 2 Supreme 244FATEHSING DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS STATE - 1972 Supreme(Guj) 102Pappulal S/o Devilal Jat, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Fatehpura vs Union Of India, Through Cbn - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 1899STATE OF KERALA vs S.VIJAYAKUMAR - 2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51063JINISH vs THE STATE OF KERALA - 2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21065Sanjeev Kumar VS State of J&K - 2022 Supreme(J&K) 210Jasleen Kaur VS Union Territory Of Chandigarh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 2069Harbir VS State of Haryana - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1201Harbir VS State of Haryana - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 1304Lakhwinder Singh @ Leela VS State of Punjab - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 1530
#Section27EvidenceAct, #PoliceRecovery, #LegalAdmissibility
It is submitted that both the aforesaid recoveries were from different places and at different times and accordingly, two separate recovery memos were prepared. ... It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in three more cases, out of which, one case bearing FIR No.28 dated 27.02.2017, is registered at Police Station Ajnala under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act. ... The petitioner would also furnish his telephone number to the concerned #HL_START....
If this be the effect of s. 27, little substance would remain in the ban imposed by the two preceding sections on confessions made to the police, or by persons in police custody. ... On this disclosure the informant alongwith his son brought the accused to police station. ... Recovery memo in that regard has been prepared which are duly exhibited as Exhibit Ka-6 to Ka-11. The accused was then taken in custody at the police station v....
custody admissible under Sec. 27 is the effect or the result of that statement. ... can rely under sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. ... In that case the evidence was that two Panch witnesses were sent for by the police and after their arrival at the police station the accused was brought out by the Circle Inspector in their presence. ... These observations would therefore show that where the information contained in different statements....
Both cases are separately registered in two different Police Stations. In case of Police Station, Binjrad, there was no information given by the accused so it cannot be relied on nor any reliance can be placed on recovery, which was in another case. ... In the instant case accused-Zakiya gave an information under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act that led to a recovery of wireless set and explosive substances. On the basis of which, a separate case in the ....
in the police station. ... The moment this kind of practice is permitted; the day is not far when there would be a trait that the police officers will claim that though the memos were prepared in the police station but the things were recovered from a different place. ... seizure/recovery memo can be prepared as a paper formality whenever it is convenient when the actual, physical recovery had been made at a different place, thus, w....
He contended that as the place of recovery was already known to the Investigating Officer, any information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that they had concealed the poppy straw at that place and the subsequent pointing out of the place of recovery was inconsequential ... Thereafter, he formed a team and proceeded to the place where the contraband was lying and effected recovery of 22 bags (13 hessian and 9 plastic) containing poppy straw vide recovery#....
If this be the effect of s. 27, little substance would remain in the ban imposed by the two preceding sections on confessions made to the police, or by persons in police custody. ... station itself. ... P1) at the Police Station Anthikkadu, Dist. Thrissur. Based on the contents of the aforesaid complaint, a First Information Report (Ext. ... This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the #HL_....
The allegations of the abovesaid crime were to the effect that, the spirit, which is allegedly the subject matter of the theft and seized and kept in the Nemom police station was stolen with the connivance of the police personnel of that police station and that the applicant and others are alleged to ... station, was stolen with the connivance of the delinquent police personnel including the applicant at the police station....
version of the prosecution regarding the alleged recovery under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not credible. ... The police after investigation submitted Annexure-A final Report/Charge Sheet in Crime No.569/2010 of Vellikulangara Police Station. ... So, both the independent witnesses to the alleged recovery under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act thus categorically stated before the court that they did not witness the accuse....
in the police station. ... The moment this kind of practice is permitted; the day is not far when there would be a trait that the police officers will claim that though the memos were prepared in the police station but the things were recovered from a different place. ... seizure/recovery memo can be prepared as a paper formality whenever it is convenient when the actual, physical recovery had been made at a different place, thus, w....
They had moved from Police Station for effecting recovery at 2.30 PM. On being asked by SHO, the accused started disclosing.
(c) It has also come in the cross-examination of IO/PW-3 SI Tilak Raj that at the time when ruqa Ex. Therefore, mentioning the complete details of FIR on Ex. P-1, i.e. recovery memo, which was registered before 4.30 PM, raises suspicion about recovery. P-2 was sent to the police station, the recovery was already effected, vide recovery memo Ex. P-1. As per this witness, ruqa was sent to the police station around 4.30 PM and it was received in the police station at 4.44 PM, as per the endorsement made by the SHO and only thereafter, the FIR was registered.
The Engine number and Chassis number of the tractor was found to be the same as the tractor of Karambir on which the deceased was employed as a driver and which he had taken on the intervening night 21/22.06.2008 to collect sand from the Faridpur sand mine and thereafter not returned but was found dead on 23.6.2008. On 25.6.2008 this tractor was transferred to this case. He had no document to establish his ownership or possession. Regarding this recovery FIR No.29 Police Station Jhinjhana District Muzaffarnagar (UP ) was recorded.
The Engine number and Chassis number of the tractor was found to be the same as the tractor of Karambir on which the deceased was employed as a driver and which he had taken on the intervening night 21/22.06.2008 to collect sand from the Faridpur sand mine and thereafter not returned but was found dead on 23.6.2008. On 25.6.2008 this tractor was transferred to this case. Regarding this recovery FIR No. 29 Police Station Jhinjhana District Muzaffarnagar (UP) was recorded. He had no document to establish his ownership or possession.
We had not checked any person on the way nor we had checked any vehicle. Place of recovery is 10 km from police station, Talwandi Sabo towards east.
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
