Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. It is argued that it is the prosecution's case that on his arrest on 29.12.06 SK gave a detailed confession to the police. Thereafter on the same day he gave another detailed confessional statement at the crime scene leading to recovery of further bones, clothes, knives belonging to other victims. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 3.1.2006 SK was sent for narco analysis for which he is said to have given his consent and once again he made a detailed confessional statement. It is also the case of the prosecution that SK had made two further confessional, statements on 11.1.07. The investigation in the case was largely over by 18.1.07. No evidence has been adduced which was obtained after 18.1.07. In spite of his having allegedly confessed to the police on the very first day, and repeatedly thereafter at great length, but accused SK was surprisingly not produced before the Magistrate to record his confession for about 1½ months though the investigation in this case was complete for all practical purposes. It is further submitted that the prosecution has provided no explanation for this delay nor explained what the police was doing with SK. In fact, further remand to police custody was obtained on false statements. A perusal of the remand applications and orders dated 8.2.07 and 22.2.07 show that SK's police custody was sought by the CBI on the pretext of recovering the body parts and clothes of victims 'D' and 'XYZ' as well as identification of the same. However the skulls and clothes of these two victims had been recovered and identified on 29.12.06 and 3.1.07 itself. Argument is that the obvious inference therefore is that 2 months of excessive police custody preceding the confession was required for three reasons: (a) to torture the accused and break his will so that he agrees to submit; (b) give time for the torture injuries to heal; and (c) give time to make the accused memorise the entire confession which was tailored to suit the recovery evidence and which was embellished with sensational and perverted details so that the reader's critical senses be numbed and he feels a sense of revulsion against the accused.

76. Ingredients to attract Section 27 are by now, well-established. The prosecution in order to secure admissibility of evidence under Section 27 will have to prove that the confessional statement has resulted in discovery of a fact which was previously not known. The making of confessional statement by the accused and discovery of fact, previously unknown, would thus have to be proved.

77. The scope of Section 27 of the Act of 1872 as also its necessary ingredients is no longer res-integra. In a series of judgments beginning from the celebrated decision of Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 till the recent decision of Supreme Court in Boby Vs. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50, as reiterated in Rajesh & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1202 it is consistently held that Section 27 provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the preceding provisions and enables certain statements made by an accused in police custody to be proved. The discovery of fact has to be shown to be a consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, and thereupon so much of information, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.

"36. ......Thus the fact remains that no confessional statement of A-1 causing the recovery of these jewels was proved under Section 27, Evidence Act....."

30. It is thus clear that this Court refused to rely on the recovery of jewels since no confessional statement of the accused was proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

31. It will also be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. David Rozario:

"5. ......This information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact envisaged in the section. Decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67 : 48 Cri LJ 533 : (1946-47) 74 IA 65] is the most-quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. (See State of Maharashtra v. Damu [(2000) 6 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1088 : 2000 Cri LJ 2301]......"

Analysis of evidence on the aspect of arrest of accused, disclosure by him and the recovery

83. PW-29 has stated that accused SK jumped off the Rikshaw and fled but the version of PW-27 is not so dramatic on this aspect. PW-29 moreover states that the confessional statement of accused SK was recorded first at police outpost at Sector 26 and then in the police station, but PW-27 states that confessional statement was recorded at the place of arrest itself i.e. on the road and not at the police outpost or at the police station.