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…!
Overall, the main insight is that the location of the weapon's concealment is frequently not specified in confessions, and courts tend to scrutinize such confessions, especially if they lack details about the hiding spot or are retracted. The evidence often relies on the accused’s knowledge or leading police to the weapon rather than explicit mention of the hiding place in the confession.
Analysis and Conclusion:
In criminal trials, confessions play a pivotal role, but what happens when a key detail—like the exact place where a weapon was hidden—isn't explicitly stated? This question often arises: place of hiding weapon not mentioned in confession. Does such an omission render the evidence inadmissible? Under Indian law, particularly Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the answer is nuanced. Generally, if the accused's statement leads directly to the weapon's discovery, that portion relating distinctly to the fact discovered remains admissible, even without spelling out the precise location upfront. This blog delves into the legal principles, landmark interpretations, and practical implications, drawing from key judicial precedents.
Section 27 is a vital exception to the general bar on confessions made to police under Section 25. It states that information received from an accused in police custody, which leads to the discovery of a fact, is admissible—even if it's confessional in nature—provided it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discoveredRamanand @ Nandlal Bharti VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2022 8 Supreme 581.
The fact discovered typically includes:- The physical object (e.g., the weapon).- The place from which it is produced.- The accused's knowledge of that place Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2022 8 Supreme 581Damodaran Damu VS State of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 53.
Courts have clarified that the confession need not pinpoint the exact spot verbatim. If the statement guides investigators to the weapon in a natural, direct manner, it's sufficient. For instance, the statement must demonstrate the accused's exclusive knowledge of the concealment, distinguishing it from mere chance finds Damodaran Damu VS State of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 53.
Indian courts have consistently upheld this principle across cases, emphasizing that admissibility hinges on a clear nexus between the statement and discovery.
In one ruling, the court stressed: the place is not open and clarified that the fact thereby discovered includes the place from which the object was recovered, and the knowledge of the accused about this place. ... even in an open place, an object can be kept concealed, say underground or in a traffic umbrella in a public road, with the information exclusively remaining with the accused Damodaran Damu VS State of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 53. This underscores that concealment can occur anywhere, and the accused's disclosure proves their involvement.
Similarly, another decision noted: the fact discovered includes the place and the accused's knowledge, and that the information must relate distinctly to that fact. ... mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment unless the information relates specifically to the location Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2022 8 Supreme 581.
A pertinent example: a confession that points out the place of concealment is relevant and admissible, even if the confession does not specify the exact spot initially, as long as the subsequent discovery is a natural outcome of the statement V. Ravi, S/o. Velayudham VS State of Kerala - 1993 0 Supreme(Mad) 538. Here, the flow from statement to recovery validates the evidence.
Broader jurisprudence reinforces these tenets. In a murder conviction upheld on appeal, the accused's disclosure statement led to the pistol's recovery: lead to the discovery of the apposite fact from the relevant place of hiding, thus only within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. ... his hiding, and, keeping the same. ... RP-101625 became mentioned on the said pistol. ... Moreover, the said signatured disclosure statement does also make speakings about his alone being aware about the location of his hiding Suresh vs State of Haryana - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1393. Ballistic evidence and witnesses further corroborated, leading to life imprisonment under IPC Sections 302 and 307.
Contrastingly, in an acquittal case, vague statements failed: the so-called confession that was made before the Police was marked in toto ... and even in the confession, there was no mention regarding the place at which the weapon was kept. From the above confession, it is seen that the accused persons have not even stated about the place at which they have concealed the weapon Murugan VS State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli District - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2313. The court ruled the entire confession inadmissible, as no distinct link to discovery existed, and serological reports didn't match.
Recovery successes appear elsewhere too. One case detailed: the second accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the weapon. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the aruval and a wooden log Rosemarry VS Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam Police Station, Pudukkottai District - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 2986. Yet, the overall acquittal stemmed from evidentiary gaps elsewhere.
In another: the accused voluntarily gave a confession statement (Ex.P5), disclosing the place where the weapon is concealed ... In pursuance of the confession statement, M.O.12 koduval was also recovered Arumugam VS State by Inspector of Police - 2003 Supreme(Mad) 1942. This bolstered the prosecution despite other weaknesses.
Failures highlight risks: Non-recovery or mismatches, like The non-recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the readily confessing accused is also a highly suspicious circumstance Raghavan VS State of Kerala - 1999 Supreme(Mad) 2701, cast doubt.
Applying this to the query: If the confession vaguely alludes to concealment and police recover the weapon based on it, courts may admit the recovery evidence under Section 27, provided:- The statement relates distinctly to the place Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2022 8 Supreme 581.- Discovery is a direct consequence, not coincidence Damodaran Damu VS State of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 53.- Exclusive knowledge is evident, e.g., hidden spots like underground or in a traffic umbrella Damodaran Damu VS State of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 53.
Prosecutors must prove this chain meticulously. Defense can challenge vagueness, as in cases where mere discovery of the weapon without a clear link to the accused's knowledge or statement may not suffice Murugan VS State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli District - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2313.
Admissibility isn't automatic. Key caveats include:- Vagueness: Statements too broad fail, e.g., no specific place mentioned renders it inadmissible Murugan VS State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli District - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2313.- No Corroboration Needed, But Wise: While Section 27 stands alone, courts caution against sole reliance without supporting evidence like forensics Suresh vs State of Haryana - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1393.- Manipulation Risks: Evidence mustn't be manipulated; genuine relation to location is key Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2022 8 Supreme 581.- Open Places: Even public spots qualify if concealed with accused's sole knowledge Damodaran Damu VS State of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 53.
In acquittals, issues like non-matching blood groups or contradictions undermined recoveries Murugan VS State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli District - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2313Shankar Das VS State of Rajasthan - 2014 Supreme(Raj) 1002.
Generally, the place of hiding a weapon may be established as admissible evidence under Section 27, even if not explicitly mentioned in the confession, if the statement distinctly leads to its discovery and reveals the accused's exclusive knowledge Damodaran Damu VS State of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 53Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2022 8 Supreme 581. This balances protecting against coerced confessions while valuing discovery-based proof.
Key Takeaways:- Focus on the distinct relation to the fact discovered.- Ensure direct consequence from statement to recovery.- Use corroboration for stronger cases.
This post provides general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
References:- Damodaran Damu VS State of Kerala - 1990 0 Supreme(Mad) 53, Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2022 8 Supreme 581, V. Ravi, S/o. Velayudham VS State of Kerala - 1993 0 Supreme(Mad) 538, Suresh vs State of Haryana - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1393, Murugan VS State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli District - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 2313, Rosemarry VS Inspector of Police, Thirukokarnam Police Station, Pudukkottai District - 2016 Supreme(Mad) 2986, Arumugam VS State by Inspector of Police - 2003 Supreme(Mad) 1942, Raghavan VS State of Kerala - 1999 Supreme(Mad) 2701, Shankar Das VS State of Rajasthan - 2014 Supreme(Raj) 1002
#Section27EvidenceAct, #CriminalLawIndia, #WeaponRecovery
from the hiding place. ... weapon then the accused-appellant might not have made such statement before the police. ... All the witnesses of the prosecution as mentioned above had deposed in unequivocal terms, on the factum of extra-judicial confession and although the verbatim of such extra-judicial confession has not been reproduced in the evidence by the witnesses but the contents of the said confession had been corroborated ... T....
lead to the discovery of the apposite fact from the relevant place of hiding, thus only within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. ... his hiding, and, keeping the same. ... RP-101625 became mentioned on the said pistol. ... Moreover, the said signatured disclosure statement does also make speakings about his alone being aware about the location of his hiding and keeping the same, and, also revealed his willingness to cause the recovery of the incriminatory weapon, to the investiga....
lead to the discovery of the apposite fact from the relevant place of hiding, thus only within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. ... The number of the motor- cycle and the esteem car which were used by the accused persons for going to the place of crime and returning to their places of postings have not been mentioned. It was admittedly drizzling. ... of his hiding, and, keeping the same. ... In the report of FSL Ex.PC it has not been mentioned....
He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source. ... Confession to police-officer not to be proved: No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. 26. ... This statement does not suggest that the appellant indicated anything about his involvement in concealment of the weapon. Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment b....
Moreover the reasons for estrangement mentioned in the two documents relief upon by the prosecution Exhibit P-4 and the confession are at variance. ... The non-recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the readily confessing accused is also a highly suspicious circumstance. In the case of an accused who appears to be of a weak mind obsessed with a sort of sex perversion a false confession is not an impossibility. ... State of Madras2, that “The rule of prudence does not requ....
Moreover the reasons for estrangement mentioned in the two documents relied upon by the prosecution Ext. P-4 and the confession are at variance. ... The non-recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the readily confessing accused is also a highly suspicious circumstance. In the case of an accused who appears to be of a weak mind obsessed with a sort of sex perversion a false confession is not an impossibility. ... State of Madras - AIR. 1958 Supreme Court 66 - that "The rule of prudence does ....
Weapon used in offence have been recovered at the instance of accused which is justified considering FSL report of blood stains found on the weapon, this clearly shows that accused wants to screen actual offender by hiding the knife. 8.3. ... Considering above mentioned facts Learned Trial Court has not committed any mistake in convicting the accused hence, appeal is require to be dismissed. 9. ... There can be no other intention but to screen the offence by hiding the vital evidence ....
(vi) A judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, more so, when such a confession is retracted, the conviction cannot be based on such retracted judicial confession. ... It is also submitted that the disclosure statement has not been properly recorded as no date and time has been mentioned in the disclosure statement and the space from the date and time in the Exhibit-8 has been kept blank, thereby raising doubt about its credibility. ... from the jungle near the #HL_STA....
kind of weapon. ... He opined cut marks over clothes mentioned in column No.7 with injury Nos.1, 7, 8, 15 to 20, 22, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34 to 39, 41 to 44, 51, 52, and 55 to 64 mentioned in column No.17 and internal damage mentioned in column No.21 of postmortem report can be possible with such kind of weapon. ... He opined cut marks present over clothes mentioned in column No.7 with injury Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 9, 13 to 25, 27 to 30, 32 to 34, 36 to 46, and 50 to 64 mentioned#HL....
P.C. the attention of appellant Shambhu Kahar was drawn that the weapon (katta) and stolen nugs, piece of chain were recovered and seized by the police on his confession from the place indicated by him. ... True it is that the Investigating agency even after obtaining permission of the Court did not send the weapon for forensic examination but the laxity on the part of the Investigating agency would not frustrate the prosecution case if there ... Relying in the aforesaid....
* The so-called confession that was made before the Police was marked in toto by the Court below and even in the confession, there was no mention regarding the place at which the weapon was kept. From the above confession, it is seen that the accused persons have not even stated about the place at which they have concealed the weapon. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1978) 4 SCC 90. In order to substantiate this submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kattu Raja vs. Therefore, the entire confession becomes inadmissible.
On 20.12.2010, P.W.15 took police custody of the second accused on the orders of the learned Magistrate. He recovered the same under a mahazar and on returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and forwarded the material objects also to the Court. While in custody, on 21.12.2010 the second accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the weapon. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the aruval and a wooden log.
The accused was arrested in the evening of 18.10.2008 and on 19.10.2008 at 09:30 AM he made a disclosure about hiding of the weapon of offence. Suffice to mention here that while explaining the adverse circumstances in prosecution evidence the accused apprehended about causing murder of Baba Chhotunath by Shankarlal (PW-1). The weapon of offence was recovered as per recovery memo Ex.P-4 wherein the attesting witness was Shri Shankarlal (PW-1) and Sukhdev (PW-2).
In pursuance of the said respective disclosure statements, the respective accused took the police and the witnesses to the respective places and produced the weapons. P.W.23 recovered all the material objects under different mahazers. At 5.40 p.m., the second accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he had disclosed that near a bridge, he had hidden the weapon. At 6.45 p.m., the sixth accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he had disclosed the place, where he had hidden the weapon.
The accused voluntarily gave a confession statement (Ex.P5), disclosing the place where the weapon is concealed, in the presence of PW7 and another witness. PW16 noticed the blood stain, in the shirt and dhoti worn by the accused (M.Os.15 and 14), which were recovered under Ex.P8. In pursuance of the confession statement, M.O.12 koduval was also recovered by PW16, under Ex.P6. The investigating officer PW16, at about 8 pm on 30.9.91, on the surrender of the accused through the Village Administrative Officer, along with Ex.P4, arrested him and further enquired.
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
