Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Thulia Kali vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 February, 1972
This aspect had been highlighted in the earlier decision, reported as Thulika Kali v. State of
Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393, to this effect:
Pulukuri Kottaya vs King-Emperor on 19 December, 1946
39. Similarly, as regards the sword, which the Appellant, Anoop, is alleged to have
wielded, to attack the deceased, Ex. PW-1/L is the Memo through which the recovery of this
weapon is said to have been effected. The actual words of the accused are that he washed the
sword under a water tap, stealthily "maine Talwar ko moke se bhagkar Raste Mein Pani ki
Tooti par Chupke se Dhokar Saf Kar diya tha." However, the rest of the statement, about
where he hid the sword, its dimensions, its previous use, etc, was recorded in the exhibit.
Now, as to the admissibility of this statement, only such of it as facilitates the discovery of an
article, or leads the police to the object, is admissible. The admission (about washing the
sword stealthily) is clearly inadmissible, by reason of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The
statement as to previous use of the sword, is likewise inadmissible. The question is whether
in these circumstances, the document can be relied on for the limited purpose of establishing
the recovery itself. The celebrated authority, Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67
CRL.A.NOS.296/97, 477/97, 38/98 & 99/98 Page 19
has guided the judicial approach in this country, for this purpose, and has been followed in
several Supreme Court judgments. The Privy Council held, in Kottaya as follows: