Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: proximate cause in Rajib Dutta vs The State Of Assam on 26 August, 2016Matching Fragments
14. Aforesaid judgment of the Privy Council has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several subsequent judgments. In the case of Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharastra reported in (1976) 1 SCC 828, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarized the aforesaid law in paragraph 12, 13 and 15 and the same are quoted below for ready reference:-
"12. The expression "Provided that" together with the phrase "whether it amounts to a confession or not" shows that the section is in the nature of an exception to the preceding provisions particularly Sections 25 and 26. It is not necessary in this case to consider if this section qualifies, to any extent, Section 24, also. It will be seen that the first condition necessary for bringing this section in to operation is the discovery of a fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The word "distinctly" means "directly", indubitably" "strictly", "unmistakably". The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase "distinctly" relates "to the fact thereby discovered" is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered.
15. Having cleared the ground, we will now consider in the light of the principles clarified above, the application of Section 27 to this statement of the accused. The first step in the process was to pinpoint the fact discovered In consequence of this statement. Obviously, in the present case, the threefold fact discovered was: (a) the chemical drums in question, (b) the place i.e. the Musafirkhana. Crawford Market, wherein they lay deposited and (c) the accused's knowledge of such deposit. The next step would be to split up the statement into its components and to separate the admissible from the inadmissible portion or portions. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest which must be excised and rejected. Thus processed, in the instant case, only the first part of the statement, viz., "I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums" was the immediate and direct cause of the fact discovered: therefore, this portion only was admissible under Section 27. The rest of the statement, namely, "which I took out from the Haji Bunder on fast August", constituted only the past history of the drums or their theft by the accused; it was not the distinct and proximate cause of the discovery and had to be ruled out of evidence altogether."
The word has been advisedly used to limit and define the scope of the provable information. The phrase "distinctly" relates "to the fact thereby discovered" and is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused, it affords some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. No such guarantee or assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to the fact discovered. (See Mohd. Inayattullah v. State of Maharashtra : (1976) 1 SCC 828 ).