Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shankar Raju Banglorkar vs State Of Goa on 25 February, 1992
This Court, in the case of Shankar Raju Banglorkar v. State of Goa, , has held that the disclosure by the accused while he was handcuffed, amounted to disclosure under duress, pressure or threats given by police and hence is not admissible in view of Article 20 of the Constitution.
Deoraj Deju Suvarna And Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 April, 1994
This view was again relied upon by the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Deoraj Deju Suvarna v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(4) Bom.C.R. 85 : 1994 Cri.L.J. 3602, wherein similar view was taken. We may observe that, no doubt that, while disclosure of the fact is made by the accused as contemplated under section 27 of the Evidence Act, he is in police custody, however, the voluntariness of his statement is guaranteed by the testimony of independent panch witnesses. However, when the accused is handcuffed during the process, it is nothing but physical manifestation of possibility of duress, threat or pressure by the police authority and, therefore, voluntary nature of the disclosure becomes doubtful.
Article 20 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1