Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis in original).

62. The Court then noted that the above view taken in Damu's case does not make it a dent on the observations made and the legal position spelt out in Om Prakash (supra) which distinguishes Damu's case because there was discovery of a related physical object at least in part. We may usefully reproduce paragraph No. 142 to 144 of the same reported decision, wherein the Court observed thus:

142. There is one more point which we would like to discuss i.e. whether pointing out a material object by the Accused furnishing the information is a necessary concomitant of Section 27. We think that the answer should be in the negative. Though in most of the cases the person who makes the disclosure himself leads the police (27 of 36) [CRLA-650/2011] officer to the place where an object is concealed and points out the same to him, however, it is not essential that there should be such pointing out in order to make the information admissible Under Section 27. It could very well be that on the basis of information furnished by the accused, the investigating officer may go to the spot in the company of other witnesses and recover the material object. By doing so, the investigating officer will be discovering a fact viz. the concealment of an incriminating Article and the knowledge of the Accused furnishing the information about it. In other words, where the information furnished by the person in custody is verified by the police officer by going to the spot mentioned by the informant and finds it to be correct, that amounts to discovery of fact within the meaning of Section 27. Of course, it is subject to the rider that the information so furnished was the immediate and proximate cause of discovery. If the police officer chooses not to take the informant Accused to the spot, it will have no bearing on the point of admissibility Under Section 27, though it may be one of the aspects that goes into evaluation of that particular piece of evidence.

143. How the Clause "as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" has to be understood is the next point that deserves consideration. The interpretation of this Clause is not in doubt. Apart from Kottaya case various decisions of this Court have elucidated and clarified the scope and meaning of the said portion of Section 27. The law has been succinctly stated in Inayatullah case.

Sarkaria, J. analysed the ingredients of the Section and explained the ambit and nuances of this particular Clause in the following words: (SCC p. 832, para 12) 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.

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.