Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 26 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 24 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mohmed Inayatullah vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 1975
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" 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. Inayatullah v. State of
Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828)." (emphasis added)
Anter Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 February, 2004
12. The scope of Section 27 of the IEA was elaborated by the
Supreme Court in Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan; (2004) 10 SCC
657 which reads as under:
Indra Dalal vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2015
In view of the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the IEA and
the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Dalal's case
(supra), confession of the guilt made by the accused in their disclosure
statements while in police custody being inadmissible in evidence,
cannot be used against them. However, Section 27 of the IEA is an
exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the IEA. It provides that any fact
discovered in consequence of the information received from a person
accused of any offence while in the custody of a police officer as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, is admissible.