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…!
Authorship of concealment is a critical element for admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Courts have consistently held that mere discovery of evidence or concealment does not automatically establish authorship by the person who discovered it 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5483, 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74020.
Judicial Precedents emphasize that for Section 27 to apply, the author of concealment must be clearly identified. If the disclosure statement or evidence lacks explicit mention that the accused placed or concealed items or information, the recovery cannot be deemed a valid discovery2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48641, 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27695, 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 65617.
The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 27 is an exception to general evidence rules, and establishing authorship is sine qua non for its application. Failure to prove authorship results in the evidence being inadmissible 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48641, 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27695.
In Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), the Court reiterated that without proof of authorship, the discovery of concealed items cannot be regarded as valid under Section 27.
Additional insights from other cases highlight that discovery based solely on information without clear authorship does not satisfy legal requirements and cannot be used to infer concealment2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5483, 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74020.
The main insight is that the authorship of concealment is essential for the admissibility of evidence under Section 27. Courts have consistently emphasized that without explicit proof that the accused concealed or placed the evidence, the recovery cannot be considered a discovery under the law. This principle ensures that evidence is not admitted solely on suspicion or incomplete information, maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings.
References:- Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC Online SC 883- Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 KHC 7083- Ajayan @ Baby v. State of Kerala- Mohmed Inayatulla v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 483- K.C. Builders & Others v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC)
In criminal trials, the obtained from an accused in custody can make or break a case. A pivotal question often arises: Is a must for admitting information under ? The has recently provided clarity, ruling that it is not a —or essential condition—for such evidence to be admissible. This blog dives deep into the judgement, its implications, and how it resolves prior ambiguities.
Whether you're a lawyer, law student, or someone navigating a legal matter, understanding this ruling is crucial. We'll break down the core findings, integrate insights from related cases, and highlight practical takeaways. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Section 27 carves out a narrow exception to the bar on confessions made to police under . It allows courts to admit in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer. The focus is on the between the accused's statement and the discovery of relevant facts, such as hidden weapons or contraband.
Historically, debates centered on whether the accused must explicitly claim responsibility for concealing the item—termed . Some courts viewed it as mandatory, while others emphasized the discovery itself. The has now settled this. [
#Section27EvidenceAct, #SupremeCourtRuling, #AuthorshipOfConcealment
The Honourable Supreme Court in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [2022 SCC Online SC 883], held thus: “Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. ... The Honourable Supreme Court in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2022 KHC 7083], held in paragraphs ....
The Honourable Supreme Court in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. ... The third reason to discard the evidence is that even if the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer is accepted as it is, what is lacking is the authorship of concealment. ... requirements for the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in R....
The Court further held that unless the authorship of concealment is established, the recovery cannot be termed as a discovery envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. ... The Sessions Court had held that the information given by the 2nd accused cannot be considered as admissible under Section 27 for the reason that the authorship of concealment is not stated. ... The #HL_STA....
The Court further held that unless the authorship of concealment is established, the recovery cannot be termed as a discovery envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. ... The Sessions Court had held that the information given by the 2nd accused cannot be considered as admissible under Section 27 for the reason that the authorship of concealment is not stated. ... The #HL_STA....
The Court further held that unless the authorship of concealment is established, the recovery cannot be termed as a discovery envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. ... The Sessions Court had held that the information given by the 2 nd accused cannot be considered as admissible under Section 27 for the reason that the authorship of concealment is not stated. ... The #HL_ST....
In the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was clearly observed that Section 73 of Evidence Act is not applicable during investigation. 18. ... State of Punjab; (1994) 5 SCC 152, (iii) judgement of Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2001 in Sapan Haldar & Another vs. State decided on 25.05.2012, (iv) another judgement of the Delhi High Court in ....
Minu Bakshi, 2022: DHC:2814-DB and also in the judgement in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 v. Unitech Reliable Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2023: DHC:4258-DB. The relevant observations made in the aforesaid judgement are extracted hereafter: "21. ... The first circumstance concerns concealment of particulars of income, while the second circumstance relates to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. ... In support of his submission, Mr Kumar h....
(2020) 3 SCC 411 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when relevant documents and affidavits were examined and the authority was satisfied, challenge on grounds of concealment at a later stage must be substantiated with clear evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. ... Court.
This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, challenging the Judgement dated 19.01.2024 [Impugned Judgement] passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Rohini (North) District Courts [Family Court ... The primary terms on which the learned Family Court has deemed it necessary to annul the marriage are: - (i) The concealment by the Appellant of the fact of h....
, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M. ... It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders & another v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax; [(2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC)]. ... As already noticed, the subject matter of the complaint before this Court is concealment of income arrived at on the basis of the finding of the Assessing Officer. ... He sub....
Those observations were highlighting the legal position that the fact discovered in that case was that the object was either sold to the witness (PW 11) or hidden or kept with him. Nowhere in that decision the Supreme Court said that to make the information given by the accused admissible under Section 27 of authorship of concealment.
Those observations were highlighting the legal position that the fact discovered in that case was that the object was either sold to the witness (PW11) or hidden or kept with him. Nowhere in that decision the Supreme Court said that to make the information given by the accused admissible under Sec.27 of the Act, it must contain authorship of concealment. The Supreme Court was pointing out that it is not the information given by the accused which led to the discovery of guns a....
In the case of 1983 (7) ACR 222 (SC) the Supreme Court observed that discovery u/s 27 is as regards authorship of concealment. The conduct & concealment are incriminating circumstances & the recovery of concealed weapon becomes relevant & admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. That apart, the sword recovered was sent for chemical examination & the report reveals that it contained stains of human blood. The accused being the author of concealment, his statement leading to disc....
He also stated that he has signed many papers when the R.D.O. visited the place as well as when he was taken to the police station. Therefore, recovery of MO6 and MO7 are not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Apart from that, there is no authorship of concealment. Even though there was blood stains in the shirt, no human blood was detected from the dress recovered.
So the confession made by the second accused falls under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The materials on record show that M.O.3 was the watch worn by the deceased on the date on which he was found missing. He had shown the place wherein he had concealed the watch, took the same and handed over the same to P.W.53. The authorship of concealment is clearly established in this case.
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
